Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 18:06 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Adam Williamson
> <adamwill at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 14:49 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chris Murphy <
> > > lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
> > > > Yet this bug [1] is routinely voted
> > > 
> > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198  Not that
> > > anyone should go try to make sense out of a three year old bug 
> > > with
> > > over 100 comments... but the gist is "nah, we don't want to fix 
> > > it
> > > now, therefore the release criteria don't matter".
> > 
> > That is not an accurate summary. For F20 it was rejected as a Beta
> > blocker and accepted as a Final blocker. It was addressed by 
> > preventing
> > the installer from allowing /boot to be on a btrfs subvolume.
> 
> Preventing the conditions that result in boot failure is not the same
> thing as fixing the underlying problem with /boot on Btrfs being
> unsupported by grubby.

Indeed it isn't, but I never said it was. I said your characterization
of how the release criteria have been applied was incorrect, and I
stand by that.

> And since something like
> Fedora 18/19 we supposedly agreed Btrfs should have parity with other
> fs's with respect to release criteria, but plainly that's not the
> case.

I don't recall that, do you have any references? If anything we may
have said it should get more prominence *on the basis it would soon be
the default FS*, but that basis clearly hasn't worked out in reality.

(FWIW, I'd apply the same principles to a similar bug in any FS which
is not the default for any of our release-blocking flavors.)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net