-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 08:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" <sgall...@redhat.com > <mailto:sgall...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> -----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.rei...@thelounge.net > <mailto:h.rei...@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. >> > > I'm not saying it isn't ready at all, just not the default. I and > others still need a way to install on to btrfs if they need to, > and frankly it is good enough for most people to use. I hope we > aren't talking about taking that option away completely right? > Thanks, >
I said they should be permitted to install it (and without annoying hoops). However, it's a *bad* user experience to have a guided path option for a feature we aren't ready to promote as the "preferred" approach. Particularly because QA testing has to occur on all guided paths. Also, let's be clear here: using the guided path in the UI of a Fedora Server install *will* be the exceptional case. I fully expect that most deployments will occur with either a kickstart or a manual partitioning effort. The only real purpose to a default, guided path in the Fedora Server UI is to provide A) the common setup we know people use so that QA is focusing its testing in the right direction and B) so that newcomers have something stable to try it out. So if you were asking me "Are we removing btrfs from the install options completely?", the answer is a resounding "NO". However, if you're asking "Are we removing btrfs from the drop-down of simple-install layouts?", my personal recommendation is "yes". This is not a slight against btrfs; if you read the rest of my emails, I'm proposing to do away with this drop-down entirely, including the ext4 and non-LVM approaches so that we really only have "The default way" and "create your own destiny" choices. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlMUhusACgkQeiVVYja6o6O6lgCdFNsmUwQmR43o4xt791dwpL5A YV4AnAqYlw3UM/6z5I+oisZCsrCDw2MJ =ptlS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
