On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> No, that isn't true. Without wide adoption you may not have any
> impetus for btrfs to get better. However, it getting better is
> dependent upon wider development, maintenance, and testing. I'm not
> sure we are in a position to actually do that, and that is the bulk of
> my hesitation. Throwing something upon Fedora users as a default with
> the hopes that it will improve is pretty horrible in my opinion,
> particularly if we aren't able to actually fix things they find.
Does Fedora or more specifically Red Hat have anyone working on Btrfs
upstream that can help guide the path forward? It can't be possibly be the
right decision to let Btrfs be struck in the current position for too long.
Fedora is harder to quantify because of the community aspect. I can
say that there is nobody on the Fedora Engineering Team (which the
Fedora kernel team is a part of) that is working on btrfs upstream.
We do have Fedora contributors like Chris Murphy and others who have
been doing a lot of testing and bug reporting around btrfs for a while
I have less insight as to broader Red Hat involvement. Btrfs is a
tech preview in the RHEL7 Beta, so some level of participation is to
be expected. How much that translates to upstream development is