On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:21 AM Markus Larsson <qrsbrwn(a)uidzero.se> wrote:
The actual data I will never ever be able to share. I have ended my
time at that particular company but even when I was there I was not permitted to share
such data. Or did you mean data from openSUSE and Arch?
Whatever data makes the claim "very clear."
Just have a look at their bug trackers.
You can dismiss it as anecdotal, that's fine. You could also try to see why someone
would get the view that I hold.
I have no problem with Fedora supporting btrfs, I have a problem with having it as the
This is because my experience tells me that it isn't ready yet. Josef has a different
view and that's good, even fine tbh. Disagreement is good, that's how mistakes are
I agree which is why we need to be very clear about what you mean by
failure. Intrinsic btrfs failures? Or that btrfs is more sensitive to
And also your recommendation necessarily means choosing a shorter
lifespan for more people's hardware. It means leaving other useful
features we could take advantage of, off the table. There is a choice
to be made, no matter what.
How do you assess the value of extending the life of most people's
hardware, to the negative UX shift in the disaster recovery pattern?
That is difficult to assess objectively, so I don't dispute a
subjective component to this evaluation. But we have to be clear about
all the parts being evaluated and not just focus on worry.
That said, arguing doesn't do much good now, the decision looks
like it has already been made.
It is definitely not made.