On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 13:38:40 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hence, IMO, gutting a filesystem implementation to just support > read-only behaviour "to prolong it's support life" actually makes > things worse from a maintenance and testing persepective, not > better.... >From your other email about 10 years support, you could first set a fs to read-only, and then after so long (I'm not sure 10 years is really necessary), then remove it. That is, make it the stage before removal. If no one complains about it being read-only after several years, then it's highly likely that no one is using it. If someone does complain, you can tell them to either maintain it, or start moving all their data to another fs. For testing, you could even have an #ifdef that needs to be manually changed (not a config option) to make it writable. -- Steve
