On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Gerald B. Cox <gb...@bzb.us> wrote:
> > That's all fine and good but features mean nothing if you don't have
> > in the underlying filesystem.
> > People have been burnt by Btrfs and just don't trust it's design.
> > now has the best chance of
> > being the next great thing - but Redhat wants to provide something for
> > customers now and is tired
> > of playing the "it's getting better, we promise" game. Hence the Stratis
> > strategy. It's a wise approach.
> No. Red Hat has *zero* engineers that work on Btrfs. That's the real
> reason for this.
> If Red Hat *really* wanted it, they would have got someone to work on
> it specifically to accelerate the stabilization of the filesystem code
> for the next RHEL. That *never* happened since Josef Bacik left Red
> Hat for Facebook years ago. Josef still works on Btrfs there, just for
> Facebook instead of Red Hat.
Why do you think they have zero engineers that work on it?
If they believed it was worthwhile they would have devoted resources to
you have to do is connect the dots.
devel mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org