Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?
jb.1234abcd at gmail.com
Sun Nov 6 08:12:22 UTC 2011
Fernando Cassia <fcassia <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 15:45, JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you could make your statement in the upcoming Fedora Project Board and
> FESCo elections
> Nobody forces you to use BTRFS, or IBM JFS or XFS for that matter. But I´d
> like to have the option of using BTRFS available.
> Instead of creating a campaign against something you don´t like, why not start
> a campaign FOR something you *do* like?
I would like to have btrfs available (in particular for its planned features),
but not as a *default* fs yet (because of the negative test results, which are
already multiple and consistent).
Let me explain why I think Fedora mishandles the *default* grant repeatedly.
"We" (to also answer Michael's post above), that is, Fedora Project members who
are also formally entitled to vote, and non-associated users/testers on
the lists, should ask candidates to Fedora leadership positions (currently in
election time) about their opinion and attitude towards planned introduction or
elevation of Fedora features to a status of default.
In order to avoid problems with btrfs as default fs, let's learn from the past
This would avoid disruptive calamities like e.g. GNOME 3 project and its devs,
who are known to know it better than the users what they (the users) need.
Then Fedora, as if nothing happened, affords them the status of a default DE
as if nothing changed between Gnome 2 and 3 DE's quality.
To make the process even more senseless, after all the above (that is, post
factum), Gnome 3 project makes a survey of users.
Just the opposite of what should have happened, that is, you ask users about
their opinions/wishes *before* starting a new/replacement project (by their own
opinion), a project that impacts the Linux DE users landscape worldwide.
Hey, I thought they had a clue about development life cycle of a project ...,
in particular in light of RH devs participation and their influence on
the project's goals.
Here are the results:
What People Are Saying About GNOME [Part 1]
What People Are Saying About GNOME [Part 2]
Now what ?
Question directed to GNOME 3 devs, and here more so to Fedora Project's current
and new electable leaders.
The normal course of action (in the world of meritocracy, that's yours, you
claim) is that you start with your project in the back of the bus and move on
to the front of it when you are ready, but not sooner.
That also with regard to becoming a poster child of a distro, that is, being
elevated to a default feature like DE, or fs, or system init.
If people do not question what is being served here (also on behalf of RH or
presumed meritocracy), they will become just the recipients of all the goodies
mentioned here and in my original post above.
I have not seen it yet that a candidate in the elections dropped a post on this
users list, introduced him/her-self, said what drove him/her, what/why/how
things need to be done, and asked for support and feedback from the users and
More information about the users