On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 17:18 +0100, Alexander Volovics wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:48:15AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 04:34:01PM +0100, Alexander Volovics wrote: > > > But a lot of users are quite happy with 'fixed' solutions, > > > especially on laptops, and might not like this unnecessary > > > complication. And do not like or need LVM. > > > > Why do you care? (Not in a snarky way, but literally -- what is important > > about this?) Is it hurting anything? > > And if you _do_ care, does it really hurt to go into the advanced path? > > Because I like to keep things 'simple' if possible and LVM adds an > extra structure to the disk layout that I won't ever use (or need). Are you sure? I've found it useful a few times without expecting to; resizing /home relative to / , for instance. Adding another disk to a system and integrating it into the existing filesystem layout is another case where LVM is genuinely useful (and one of the major use cases supporting it being introduced in the first place, way back in the day). > And no it doesn't hurt to go into the advanced path but why the > extra work. > > I have been following the discussions on the different lists and > know the rationale for the decision but as AdamW says in the > reference you give: > "It was manageable, because a plain ext4 layout is a fairly simple > thing that isn't likely to break much". > > So it shouldn't add much to the QA burden or distract too much from > the desire to keep things uniform across the 3 products. Frankly, I'm still happy it's gone. It makes things simpler both in use and in testing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
