<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Feb 26, 2014 10:18 AM, "Jaroslav Reznik" <<a href="mailto:jreznik@redhat.com">jreznik@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Josh Boyer <<a href="mailto:jwboyer@fedoraproject.org">jwboyer@fedoraproject.org</a>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, even if that<br>
> > thing isn't ready. I really don't want to wade through tons of bug reports<br>
> > for btrfs just because it has a lot of hype.<br>
> ><br>
> > Also, right now cloud is plain old ext4. Let's see if we can ship *all* of<br>
> > the filesystems! It'll be fun!<br>
><br>
> Yep, a lot of fun - three different file systems for free different products.<br>
> And we are back to the question how much these products could differ - with<br>
> limited resources we have right now - at least short term. Who can answer it<br>
> - filesystem/kernel guys, if they are able and willing to support all<br>
> potential filesystem, as David stated, it's possible in Anaconda but again<br>
> the same question if the team would be able to maintain more filesystems<br>
> support with high bar in terms of quality (even for example brtfs limited<br>
> to bare minimum), QA... And it could be pretty confusing for users but that's<br>
> up to us/marketing to explain that products aim specific goal and it's for<br>
> good (if we would be able to support it - then it's for good, if not...).<br>
><br>
> Adding devel list to CC - I expect another topic Base should be involved<br>
> too.<br>
><br>
> And no, no elections for file system. It's really up to WGs and coordination<br>
> with the rest teams.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Josef</p>