default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> No, that isn't true.  Without wide adoption you may not have any
>> impetus for btrfs to get better.  However, it getting better is
>> dependent upon wider development, maintenance, and testing.  I'm not
>> sure we are in a position to actually do that, and that is the bulk of
>> my hesitation.  Throwing something upon Fedora users as a default with
>> the hopes that it will improve is pretty horrible in my opinion,
>> particularly if we aren't able to actually fix things they find.
>
>
> Does Fedora or more specifically Red Hat have anyone working on Btrfs
> upstream that can help guide the path forward?  It can't be possibly be the
> right decision to let Btrfs be struck in the current position for too long.

Fedora is harder to quantify because of the community aspect.  I can
say that there is nobody on the Fedora Engineering Team (which the
Fedora kernel team is a part of) that is working on btrfs upstream.
We do have Fedora contributors like Chris Murphy and others who have
been doing a lot of testing and bug reporting around btrfs for a while
though.

I have less insight as to broader Red Hat involvement.  Btrfs is a
tech preview in the RHEL7 Beta, so some level of participation is to
be expected.  How much that translates to upstream development is
unclear.

josh