Incredulous yes, angry no. I came here instead of bugzilla because I thought the issue

needed a wider audience - especially since it's made its way into the linux media.

IMO the decision to exclude F2FS was a mistake. The arguments stated as to why it wasn't included

don't really stand up to scrutiny. Being under heavy development hasn't stopped other features.... as I mentioned earlier

BTRFS is the poster child for this. Now we're in a situation where products are actually being

rolled out that ship with F2FS, other major Linux distributions support it, and

the one linux distribution which prides itself on having the latest and greatest doesn't have it.

Sorry if my tone was overly aggressive... it's just very disappointing.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox@bzb.us> wrote:
> Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I thought
> I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route.
>
> Based upon the information I discovered tonight it seems a bit puzzling it
> isn't included. Seriously, Ubuntu includes it and we don't?
> Google is using it for the Nexus 9? The "experimental" rationale just
> doesn't hold weight - especially since we are allowing for
> BTRFS Raid5/6; which is made out to be toxic. If it's good enough for
> Google and ahem: "Ubuntu" - it's beyond ridiculous we don't have it.

So you looked at a bug that is a year and a half old, around the time
when F2FS was very new and under a lot of work, and assumed that
nothing could have possibly changed? Maybe instead of getting angry
and incredulous, you could actually leave a comment in the bug or open
a new RFE bug to have it enabled. If you do, highlighting your
findings without the snarky and aggressive tone would probably help
your case.

josh

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct