On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:45 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Am 27.05.2021 um 00:59 schrieb Chris Murphy
> Whereupon Server SIG/WG perform an evaluation of Btrfs for their
> cases, and decide Btrfs should be the default in a compelling manner,
> FESCo will approve it. And this plausibly could still happen for
> Fedora 35, if folks really want it to happen.
Theoretically, it could. But practically, I don't see it happen. The need for
discussion is too great. And not everyone is as convinced as you are that BTRFS is the
non-plus-ultra for all possible use cases.
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.
Also, I don't think Btrfs is the end all for all use cases; I gave an
example to the contrary in the previous email. There are always trade
offs. The conversation should focus on what those tradeoffs are and
how much each SIG values them.
> Server SIG can do anything they
> want. Red Hat is doing the same.
Nevertheless, coordination and cooperation is at least very desirable (in fact,
indispensable). And is is not just about who is paying the bills. Beyond this crude
economic dimension, Fedora benefits from the reputation of being upstream for RHEL (and
vice versa, for sure). A defiant "we can do as we like" is not helpful.
It isn't defiance, it's conviction consistent with Fedora's mission
and the four foundations. 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.
> My opinion is to not worry about the process in advance of
> the hurdle. You jump over the hurdle at the proper time. The vast
> majority of the process is about technical features liabilities.
And when we address discussion and evidence:
> Not often but sometimes folks ask "where has all the space gone?"
> following a Server installation. They're not expecting or maybe not
> discovering, that quite a lot is held in reserve in the VG.
As said before, I agree with that, at least for the most part. I use BTRFS myself in LVs
to use specific capabilities. Still, I'm against converting "with a flick of the
wrist," so to speak. It needs careful preparation. And one possible outcome is also,
not to switch to BTRFS. I don't think it is a given that a switch is right in any
case. That is perhaps the difference between us.
I agree with all of these things. But from my point of view they are
obvious, to the degree that since you're stating them, it makes me
wonder whether you think something has happened abruptly, frivolously,
or without sufficient care and preparation. In your view should
something have occurred before the proposal was submitted that didn't?
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