Am 28.05.2021 um 23:08 schrieb Chris Murphy
<lists(a)colorremedies.com>:
> ……
All I mean by this is to push back on the idea that the proposal for
Cloud translates into delaying the decision for Server by 5 or 10
years. Not that Server folks should escalate their discussion.
What I originally meant was the idea to discuss / explore opportunities to coordinate or
join the efforts of Server WG and Cloud WG and to better aline both.
But that idea seems to me got silently out of attention over time. We discussed that an
the beginning of March, Server WG picked it up again at the end of March, and there was a
brief mention in Cloud WG in early April. Since then there has been silence.
My working assumption is substantive public
discussion, to reveal the pros and cons of the proposal, in order to
come to a decision. The proposal is not the decision.
We fully agree on that.
> And when we address discussion and evidence: What I miss is a
prior detailed discussion of this change in cloud WG and coordination with other possible
affected areas, e.g. server or CoreOS. Cloud Working Group did not happened for years,
then there were a few short, sparsely-attended and content-dry meetings. A range of
existing problems, starting with lack of documentation. A hesitancy to make any change
currently to the cloud artifacts (expressed by Dusty Mabe at that March meeting, 3). And
then out of nowhere the file system conversion, a very central element. To me, it seems
like a playground for missionaries to gain ground, certainly not like a considerate and
methodical long-term design.
I don't agree it happened out of nowhere. It's been floated by various
folks over the years, even before Workstation edition switched to
Btrfs by default. Fedora has quite a lot of sprawl, it's a diverse
community, not all conversations happen on devel@ so it can be easy to
draw a conclusion that it's sudden. But that is the whole point of the
change proposal process, is to make a broad and grand announcement on
the primary development list, expressly because we don't want folks
missing big changes. Now is exactly the time to dig into the
drawbacks, liabilities, risks of proposals, and weigh them against the
proponents' typically strong take in favor of the change or else they
probably wouldn't have submitted the proposal in the first place.
Take it from me, I really like the adversarial process. I don't mean
this in the negative connotation, but rather the legal denotation. We
should have a debate. That time is right now, in this thread. And I
welcome it.
The mail came from Ben as the FPM and not as part of an invitation to cloud irc meeting
nor as part of a broader programmatic discussion in Cloud WG about the continued long-term
evolution of cloud images. That is what irritated me and what I missed.
I see the invigorating effect of an adversarial process. However, I worry that the
long-term programmatic aspects will be neglected. And it emphasizes very much the
differentiating and the separating. That’s fine in a legal process, but not in a community
process.
And part of such a programmatic discussion would also be the exploration of common
features of server and cloud, of possible adaptations and synergy effects, which was
discussed at the beginning of the year and planned after Dusty's return. All that is
gone now as a result of that action, virtually in an "overnight coup
d'état". And this was (and is) my argument, not various single technical
properties, advantages or disadvantages of BTRFS. And that is what I regret.