> I also think there are other perspectives that might at least > potentially be useful here. Right now we've mainly heard from a couple > of community folks who are very passionate about btrfs, and Red Hat > folks from anaconda/kernel development and RHEL management who > essentially see it as a burden that is not aligned with their > priorities. Is that all the perspectives we have to make a decision > with? I think we should at least talk to the Facebook team that > apparently uses btrfs on Fedora extensively about whether they'd be sad > to see installer btrfs support die and, if so, whether they'd perhaps > be interested in helping support it. And more broadly, community folks > on all the lists this is going to: are there more people who actually > are interested in this functionality and would be sad to see it go? If > btrfs isn't a part of Red Hat's product roadmaps but is important to > lots of folks in the wider Fedora community, maybe that's another > indicator we can use....or indeed, if it turns out not many folks > actually care. As an on the record btrfs skeptic, I think it would help to have an end-to-end picture of what's missing or needs to be added across all packages. If someone comes to me today and says "I want to help btrfs be successful in Fedora", I'd like to know where to point them besides just suggesting they get added on the btrfs kernel alias. _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
