BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[JB]

Ric Wheeler <rwheeler <at> redhat.com> writes:

> ...
 
> Given that my family is from the hills of eastern 
> Kentucky, I also find the "hill billie" comment off putting.
> ...

Ric, no offense ... injecting Kentucky hills was misguided ... I happened to
visit the state few times and was impressed with how nice it looked ... and
the girls ... and horses ... Wow !  :-)

> ... 
> We will not push for btrfs as a default unless it is safe.
> ...

I have difficulty swallowing the fact that there are so many Red Hat, Oracle,
and other famous technology names involved (officially or dev's private
contributions) in development of BTRFS, and at the same time they practice
such loosely approach to software development methodology.

You can not manipulate an algorithm or disregard it in part without botching
it as a whole, and at the same time be perceived as capable of handling BTRFS
development ...

I do understand that people contributing to BTRFS are of different ways of
life ... but those that assume leading positions anywhere in its dev life
cycle must be "up to snuff" (academically, technically, etc).
Otherwise, you will produce a "Frankenstein" fs !

The stakes are high because the features are advanced, attractive, and
compelling.

JB