On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 02:17:29PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 7/6/23 12:38 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Right now what I'm hearing, in particular from Redhat, is that they want > > it upstream in order to commit more resources. Which, I know, is not > > what kernel people want to hear, but it's the chicken-and-the-egg > > situation I'm in. > > I need to temper that a little. Folks in and around filesystems and storage > at Red Hat find bcachefs to be quite compelling and interesting, and we've > spent some resources in the past several months to investigate, test, > benchmark, and even do some bugfixing. > > Upstream acceptance is going to be a necessary condition for almost any > distro to consider shipping or investing significantly in bcachefs. But it's > not a given that once it's upstream we'll immediately commit more resources > - I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah, I should probably have worder that a bit better. But in the conversations I've had with people at other companies it does sound like the interest is there, it's just that filesystem/storage teams are not so big these days as to support investing in something that is not yet mainlined. > It is a tough chicken and egg problem to be sure. That said, I think you're > right Kent - landing it upstream will quite likely encourage more interest, > users, and hopefully developers. Gotta start somewhere :) > Maybe it'd be reasonable to mark bcachefs as EXPERIMENTAL or similar in > Kconfig, documentation, and printks - it'd give us options in case it > doesn't attract developers and Kent does get hit by a bus or decide to go > start a goat farm instead (i.e. in the worst case, it could be yanked, > having set expectations.) Yeah, it does need to be marked EXPERIMENTAL initially, regardless - staged rollout please, not everyone all at once :)
