default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Mon Mar 3 12:35:21 UTC 2014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> 
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma:
>>> On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be 
>>>> default in Fedora yet.  Optional is fine but not default. 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>> This is actually a good news. Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Now all we need is fair support in the installer. BTRFS as 
>>> alternative scheme: +1 "F-Server" +1 "F-Workstation"
>> 
>> one of the BTRFS maintainers explains is is *not* ready and you 
>> start "we need" in context of BTRFS? strange logic
> 
> Josef said it's not ready to be default. Poma suggested making it 
> available as an alternate to whatever the default is, which is 
> consistent with how Fedora has been for three releases. His 
> suggestion is still fewer permutations than the partition scheme 
> outcomes in Fedora 20; and is about the same or on par with Fedora 
> 18/19, but still one more than oldui.
> 

One of the things that we have been seriously discussing here is that
non-default options (particularly those known not to be "ready") do
not need or deserve to be presented with the same prominence as other
options.

In my opinion, only the default layout should be provided prominently.
Other choices (such as btrfs) should be available as part of the
"custom" layout options. Users should be permitted to install it (and
without annoying hoops), but they are not entitled to us developing a
"best effort default of a technology we aren't sure they should be
using", which is essentially what the "btrfs" drop-down in Fedora 20
meant.