Chris Mason wrote:
Unresolved from this reviewing thread: * Should it be named btrfsdev? My vote is no, it is extra work for the distros when we finally do rename it, and I don't think btrfs really has the reputation for stability right now. But if Linus or Andrew would prefer the dev on there, I'll do it.
We know who has the last word on this. This is just additional background for those who commented. Using tricks such as btrfsdev, mount "unsafe", or kernel messages won't provide a guarantee that btrfs is only used in appropriate and risk-free ways. Those tricks also won't prevent all problems caused by booting a broken old (or new) release. And the perceived quality and performance of any filesystem release, even between stable versions, depends very much on individual system configuration and use. Before Chris posted the code, we had some btrfs concall discussions about the best way to set user expectations on btrfs mainline 1.0. Consensus was that the best way we could do this was to warn them when they did mkfs.btrfs. Today I sent a patch to Chris (which he may ignore/change) so mkfs.btrfs will say: WARNING! - Btrfs v0.16-39-gf9972b4 IS EXPERIMENTAL WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using with a blank line before and after. They don't have to confirm since they can just mkfs a different filesystem if I scared them away. The version is auto-generated. jim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
