default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, even if that
>> thing isn't ready. I really don't want to wade through tons of bug reports
>> for btrfs just because it has a lot of hype.
>>
>> Also, right now cloud is plain old ext4. Let's see if we can ship *all* of
>> the filesystems! It'll be fun!
>
> Yep, a lot of fun - three different file systems for free different products.
> And we are back to the question how much these products could differ - with
> limited resources we have right now - at least short term. Who can answer it
> - filesystem/kernel guys, if they are able and willing to support all

I'm a kernel guy.  We already ship all of these filesystems.  People
already do installs with all of them.  Really, it's more about what we
consider _sane_ as the default for most users that don't know the
difference, and not about shipping them in general.

> potential filesystem, as David stated, it's possible in Anaconda but again
> the same question if the team would be able to maintain more filesystems
> support with high bar in terms of quality (even for example brtfs limited
> to bare minimum), QA... And it could be pretty confusing for users but that's

I don't think the support aspect is going to change much either way.
The only thing I see possibly happening is more focus on btrfs, but I
know my team isn't in a position to spend any significant amount of
time on that right now.

josh