Plans for BTRFS in Fedora
drago01 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 23 13:07:59 UTC 2011
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan at jonmasters.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can
> do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I
> don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am
> concerned that this will lead to less testing and exposure to full LVM
> use within the Fedora community. Instead, I'd like to counter-propose
> that everything stay exactly as it is, with users being able to elect to
> switch to BTRFS (sub)volumes if they are interested in doing so.
> Should the switch to BTRFS by default happen, this will be one more
> thing I will have to fix immediately during installation. The list grows
> longer and longer over time - please don't make this change.
Oh god changes how dare we even think about those evil things!
Now seriously we cannot make progress when every time a (bigger)
change is proposed people start screaming "but this changes what we
and regarding this particular case I think LVM by default has pretty
much always been a bad idea anyway.
And it is not like installing an OS is something you do everyday so
you install your OS, do the changes you think are necessary and be
done with it.
Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best
experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the
past" (i.e stagnation).
More information about the devel