On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:25 AM David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
The installer team rejecting btrfs patches is going to be based on their
resources to support the functionality. I would say "btrfs in Fedora"
needs a FESCo decision to set expectations and policy for the project.
Is it something that Fedora wants to offer and if so, what does that
FESCo already voted 8 years ago to make Btrfs the default file system,
and then allowed that to wither and become moot rather than revert the
decision. Then later when the editions were created, part of
Fedora.next, the decision of default file systems was handed to the
working groups to decide. And the Fedora kernel team has also said
this is a working group decision.
The Fedora working group's technical specification states Btrfs is to
be the default. Yet the working group has said it's uncomfortable
taking action on this decision expressly because the Federal kernel
team's official recommendation is to not recommend Btrfs. And I agree.
I trust the Fedora kernel team as they've clearly stated limited
resources and interest in Btrfs, the expectations and parameters for
properly supporting Btrfs either as bug blocker worthy, and as a
default file system from a user advocacy point of view.
If it's a best effort thing, then that makes it easier for
projects and contributors. Going back to Adam's original list, I would
suggest a FESCo decision like this should require explicit opt-in by the
user to enable btrfs functionality in the application in question. For
example, in the installer that could be enabled via a boot parameter (we
did this initially when btrfs functionality was first enabled in anaconda).
That can only be considered to be a remarkable regression, not just in
the context of Fedora, but in the context of the top 10 linux
distributions all of which have visible Btrfs support in their GUI
installers. Fedora's installer being the first to make Btrfs invisible
by default would be a remarkable first indeed.
I'm not advocating one way or another for btrfs. But it seems we
project need a larger decision and policy around btrfs in general so we
can set expectations for users and developers.
That decision and policy has already been made. Do you want it reverted?