Importance of LVM (was Re: Partitioning criteria revision proposal)

[Robyn Bergeron]

On 10/25/2012 01:41 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 08:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On this topic...Ric Wheeler came up with some fairly good arguments in
>> favour of keeping the LVM default and proposed it on the anaconda list
>> this morning (actually I think the post may not have been approved yet,
>> but it'll show up soon). Since we're post-freeze now I summarized the
>> debate into a bug report and nominated it for NTH:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870207
>>
>> I think it's still true to say that our*original*  reasons for
>> defaulting to LVM don't really hold any more, but Ric made some pretty
>> decent*current*  arguments for keeping that default until we switch to
>> btrfs-by-default.
>
> First of all this has been known this whole time  Ric is not bringing 
> anything new to the table and I nack to this proposal it's to dam late 
> in the release cycle to change this now and if we change this it means 
> we have to slip another week to properly test anaconda with lvm as 
> default against the alpha and beta criteria
I am under the impression that we've been testing with/without LVM 
anyway, both scenarios? In any case, it doesn't seem as earthshaking as 
other developments - it's just making the default be what it's been for 
some time, and given that there exists documentation for the "lvm 
enabled case" and not much otherwise it seems like a reasonable thing to 
do.  I would almost make the case that disabling LVM by default - were 
it a feature - would require a lot of that backup documentation and info 
that isn't really there....
>
> Can we please stop messing around with the installer!
>
> JBG
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20121025/4f7017a2/attachment.html>