On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:19 PM Justin Forbes <jmforbes(a)linuxtx.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:02 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:30 PM Justin Forbes <jmforbes(a)linuxtx.org>
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:39 PM John M. Harris Jr
<johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:22:00 AM MST Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 11:09, Michael Catanzaro
<mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:26 am, Stephen Gallagher
> > > > > > <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the record, as this directly affects the
Workstation deliverable,
> > > > > > > I will be voting -1 until and unless the Workstation
WG votes in
> > > > > > > favor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, it's a large set of Change owners, but since
only two of them are
> > > > > > > Workstation WG members, they are not representative of
that group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Workstation WG hat on:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think there's any need to vote -1 for that
reason alone. The
> > > > > > Workstation WG has discussed the change proposal at several
meetings
> > > > > > recently (really, we've spent a long time on this), and
frankly we were
> > > > > > not making a ton of progress towards reaching a decision
either way, so
> > > > > > going forward with the change proposal and moving the
discussion to
> > > > > > devel@ to get feedback from a wider audience and from FESCo
seemed like
> > > > > > a good idea. Most likely, we'll wind up doing whatever
FESCo chooses
> > > > > > here, but unless FESCo were to explicitly indicate intent
to override
> > > > > > the Workstation WG, we would not consider a FESCo decision
to limit
> > > > > > what the Workstation WG can do with the Workstation
product. At least,
> > > > > > my understanding of the power structure FESCo has
established is that
> > > > > > the WG can make product-specific decisions that differ from
FESCo's
> > > > > > decisions whenever we want, unless FESCo says otherwise
(because FESCo
> > > > > > always has final say). That is, if FESCo were to approve
btrfs by
> > > > > > default, but Workstation WG were to vote to stick with
ext4, then we
> > > > > > would stick with ext4 unless FESCo were to say "no
really, you need to
> > > > > > switch to btfs" (which I highly doubt would happen).
So I don't see any
> > > > > > reason to vote -1 here out of concern for overriding the
WG.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that the request as discussed reads as
"FESCo says use
> > > > > it for workstation" vs "FESCo has no problem with
Workstation saying
> > > > > they want btrfs" or "FESCo says use btrfs as
default". Yes it says
> > > > > "desktop variants" but only 1 variant really counts
and that is
> > > > > Workstation. So yes, either Workstation agrees to it or it
isn't
> > > > > getting voted on. If Workstation can't come to an agreement
on it,
> > > > > then the proposal is dead. Anything else is an end-run and a
useless
> > > > > trolling of people to see how many rants LWN counts in its
weekly
> > > > > messages.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's not only Workstation that this proposal is trying to
throw btrfs
> > > > on, but the other desktops as well, such as KDE Spin.
> > >
> > > How is that even a thing? Shouldn't a spin maintainer be responsible
> > > for choosing the defaults of their spin? This proposal seems fairly
> > > absurd in the regard of dictating what other people should do.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I asked spin owners from each one before adding
> > them. That's why the change covers them all, they all assented to it.
> > I am doing all the work for it, but I asked for their approval to be
> > covered under this.
> >
> > Please don't assume such absurd things like that, especially given the
> > list of change owners and listed responsible entities.
> >
>
> I honestly hadn't considered it until it came up that the Workstation
> WG has not come to agreement on this change yet. Either way, it is my
> belief that the spins should be able to decide what they want to use,
> when they want to use it. If they have bought in, that's great.
> From a kernel standpoint, the only change being asked here is to make
> btrfs inline instead of a module. If it is to become the default fs
> for any spin, I don't have a problem with that.
I submitted it because it was agreed to submit it[1]. I would have
waited otherwise.
[1]:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/workstation/workstation.2020-06-2...
So it seems the purpose of the proposal was to generate discussion
(which it certainly has), but the Workstation WG has not decided what
they really want yet. I do get wanting discussion about it. I do not
get how it is a proper change request at this point. Seems very much
like "We would like to propose a change that we may or may not do",
and if the decision is ultimately to not do it, time was wasted.