BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[Reindl Harald]

Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
> Farkas Levente wrote:
>> if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
>> as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
> 
> If f16 gets kernel 3.1 (or backported stuff into 3.0), IMHO there is no 
> reason to slip it one release

there are many reasons!

replacing an essential part of the OS as filesystems are with
finally not well tested piece of new software is simply a
dangerous game with no benefit

"hopefully stable at release" is my definition of untested

the normal users have not enough knowledge to chagnge the
defaults and they are primary for them and advanced users
which konwig what they do can select it on install time


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110713/86e3e942/attachment.bin