Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
FWIW, I see that f2fs-tools is in fedora, but it's a bit old, at v1.2.0 while upstream is at 1.4.0. (http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs-tools.git) If you're agitating for movement in the kernel, might want to give the userspace pkg maintainer ( echevemaster ) a heads up, too. Done, the package has been updated. (would be great to count with the support in the kernel soon.) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: UDF has been in the best position to do this for ~ 20 years, seeing as it has had Windows, OS X, and linux distro support for most of that time frame. And yet it didn't supplant FAT or NTFS on flash media on any platform or distribution. Thanks Chris, I had looked at played around with UDF a while back and found this: http://askubuntu.com/questions/521900/fsck-tool-for-udf-filesysyem-in-14-04 Basically, from the ubuntu link it looks as if upstream for the udftools project is dead and that udf doesn't have fsck support. Is that true? On a more important note, I'm being yelled at to get off the computer on Christmas! Hope everyone is having a happy holiday! Cheers! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On 2014-12-22, 17:20 GMT, Gerald B. Cox wrote: It isn't about a single module... you're a smart guy... you know better. I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask somebody else to work for you on your pet project. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel *PLONK Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote: On 2014-12-22, 17:20 GMT, Gerald B. Cox wrote: It isn't about a single module... you're a smart guy... you know better. I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask somebody else to work for you on your pet project. He already apologized ... no need to dig out the old mails ... let the thread die. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote: I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask somebody else to work for you on your pet project. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it. I don't really have much experience with custom kernels, but always willing to learn new things. Just for the record, my intent was simply to comment on the Phoronix article and the fact that F2FS is being used and we don't have it. It isn't a personal pet project. From what I read it has the possibility of getting rid of FAT / NTFS on flash devices; which would be a good thing - and I thought that would be something the Fedora community would be interested with participating. People contribute in many different ways, and I didn't think I needed to possess a kernel skill-set to broach this topic. That is pretty much it. No anger, no malice, no passive aggressive hidden messages. I appreciate the fact the issue is currently being considered. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On 2014-12-24, 11:10 GMT, drago01 wrote: I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask somebody else to work for you on your pet project. He already apologized ... no need to dig out the old mails ... let the thread die. Yes, my point was mainly to post the URL of building customized kernel. He can use it. Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Am 24.12.2014 um 21:20 schrieb Matěj Cepl: On 2014-12-24, 11:10 GMT, drago01 wrote: I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask somebody else to work for you on your pet project. He already apologized ... no need to dig out the old mails ... let the thread die. Yes, my point was mainly to post the URL of building customized kernel. He can use it then why did you write the angry *PLONK? just curious because my intention is also way too often misinterpreted signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On 2014-12-24, 20:59 GMT, Reindl Harald wrote: then why did you write the angry *PLONK? PLONK is not angry. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/P/plonk.html defines it in this way: plonk: excl.,vt. [Usenet: possibly influenced by British slang ‘plonk’ for cheap booze, or ‘plonker’ for someone behaving stupidly (latter is lit. equivalent to Yiddish schmuck)] The sound a newbie makes as he falls to the bottom of a kill file. While it originated in the newsgroup talk.bizarre, this term (usually written “*plonk*”) is now (1994) widespread on Usenet as a form of public ridicule. For me it is just a sign that for the purposes of my mental hygiene I put author of the email into the killlist. No anger needs to be involved. Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: From what I read it has the possibility of getting rid of FAT / NTFS on flash devices; which would be a good thing - and I thought that would be something the Fedora community would be interested with participating. UDF has been in the best position to do this for ~ 20 years, seeing as it has had Windows, OS X, and linux distro support for most of that time frame. And yet it didn't supplant FAT or NTFS on flash media on any platform or distribution. F2FS's main benefit is its tunablity. Meanwhile manufacturers aren't going to make the internal geometry or FTL scheme their using discoverable. Therefore a default format won't result in tuned storage. It'll require the initiator of the format command to have product specific knowledge so that the right format options are used. This suggests a manufacturer specific formatting utility, assuming the idea is to make F2FS general purpose across Windows, OS X and Linux. But since there are no Windows or OS X drivers that's a premature conclusion. I think more likely it's a way to supplant all other file systems, including Linux file systems, for tablets, phones, IVI, and other embedded products. The manufacturers of those systems can use F2FS across the board, and get the optimum formatting command from their flash vendor of choice; and as they find out, probably as Samsung hopes, that this will show Samsung flash outperforms everyone else when optimized, that more embedded product developers will choose Samsung flash. -- Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I thought I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route. Based upon the information I discovered tonight it seems a bit puzzling it isn't included. Seriously, Ubuntu includes it and we don't? Google is using it for the Nexus 9? The experimental rationale just doesn't hold weight - especially since we are allowing for BTRFS Raid5/6; which is made out to be toxic. If it's good enough for Google and ahem: Ubuntu - it's beyond ridiculous we don't have it. So you looked at a bug that is a year and a half old, around the time when F2FS was very new and under a lot of work, and assumed that nothing could have possibly changed? Maybe instead of getting angry and incredulous, you could actually leave a comment in the bug or open a new RFE bug to have it enabled. If you do, highlighting your findings without the snarky and aggressive tone would probably help your case. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Incredulous yes, angry no. I came here instead of bugzilla because I thought the issue needed a wider audience - especially since it's made its way into the linux media. IMO the decision to exclude F2FS was a mistake. The arguments stated as to why it wasn't included don't really stand up to scrutiny. Being under heavy development hasn't stopped other features as I mentioned earlier BTRFS is the poster child for this. Now we're in a situation where products are actually being rolled out that ship with F2FS, other major Linux distributions support it, and the one linux distribution which prides itself on having the latest and greatest doesn't have it. Sorry if my tone was overly aggressive... it's just very disappointing. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I thought I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route. Based upon the information I discovered tonight it seems a bit puzzling it isn't included. Seriously, Ubuntu includes it and we don't? Google is using it for the Nexus 9? The experimental rationale just doesn't hold weight - especially since we are allowing for BTRFS Raid5/6; which is made out to be toxic. If it's good enough for Google and ahem: Ubuntu - it's beyond ridiculous we don't have it. So you looked at a bug that is a year and a half old, around the time when F2FS was very new and under a lot of work, and assumed that nothing could have possibly changed? Maybe instead of getting angry and incredulous, you could actually leave a comment in the bug or open a new RFE bug to have it enabled. If you do, highlighting your findings without the snarky and aggressive tone would probably help your case. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On 12/22/14 8:16 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I thought I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route. Based upon the information I discovered tonight it seems a bit puzzling it isn't included. Seriously, Ubuntu includes it and we don't? Google is using it for the Nexus 9? The experimental rationale just doesn't hold weight - especially since we are allowing for BTRFS Raid5/6; which is made out to be toxic. If it's good enough for Google and ahem: Ubuntu - it's beyond ridiculous we don't have it. So you looked at a bug that is a year and a half old, around the time when F2FS was very new and under a lot of work, and assumed that nothing could have possibly changed? Maybe instead of getting angry and incredulous, you could actually leave a comment in the bug or open a new RFE bug to have it enabled. If you do, highlighting your findings without the snarky and aggressive tone would probably help your case. josh FWIW, I see that f2fs-tools is in fedora, but it's a bit old, at v1.2.0 while upstream is at 1.4.0. (http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs-tools.git) If you're agitating for movement in the kernel, might want to give the userspace pkg maintainer ( echevemaster ) a heads up, too. -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: Please don't top post. Incredulous yes, angry no. I came here instead of bugzilla because I thought the issue needed a wider audience - especially since it's made its way into the linux media. IMO the decision to exclude F2FS was a mistake. The arguments stated as to why it wasn't included don't really stand up to scrutiny. Being under heavy development hasn't Would you have been willing to handle any and all F2FS bugs that are reported against the kernel? Maintenance and bug handling doesn't come for free. Granted, reports against this will likely be low now but they're certainly not going to be dealt with at the same priority level as other bugs. So while you may think it was a mistake, the people that actually have to handle the kernel weren't in a position to deal with bug reports against a filesystem that was under heavy development at the time that brought little benefit to Fedora itself. If F2FS is in a better state now, then it makes it easier to enable. stopped other features as I mentioned earlier BTRFS is the poster child for this. Now we're in a situation where products BTRFS is actually a poster child for enabling something before it was really ready, people getting excited about it, and then being disappointed when it isn't actually ready (still). It's certainly useful, but I wouldn't hold it up as an example of something we did correctly. are actually being rolled out that ship with F2FS, other major Linux distributions support it, and the one linux distribution which prides itself on having the latest and greatest doesn't have it. Latest and greatest is good and all, but not at the expense of throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. A year and a half ago, that's the situation F2FS was in. Sorry if my tone was overly aggressive... it's just very disappointing. Really? It's very disappointing that a single module that isn't used for anything in Fedora itself is disabled? I understand the desire to want to tinker, but to be very disappointed in this is... well it's odd. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Really? It's very disappointing that a single module that isn't used for anything in Fedora itself is disabled? I understand the desire to want to tinker, but to be very disappointed in this is... well it's odd. You're really deflecting quite a bit in your above response, but this one takes the cake. Really? Does this look familiar to you: ...The Fedora Project is sponsored by Redhat which invests in our infrastructure and resources to encourage collaboration and incubate innovative new technologies. It isn't about a single module... you're a smart guy... you know better. In any event, the whole point is now moot. F2FS is out there and being actively used. Other distributions include it. Fedora should include it also. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Trying to turn this discussion into something more productive and deliberately ignoring the negativity: What is the present position/plan for f2fs in Fedora? Is there any hardware out there that uses it? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Really? It's very disappointing that a single module that isn't used for anything in Fedora itself is disabled? I understand the desire to want to tinker, but to be very disappointed in this is... well it's odd. You're really deflecting quite a bit in your above response, but this one takes the cake. Really? You neglected to reply to my other points about scaling, maintenance, and bug handling. Who's deflecting now? Does this look familiar to you: ...The Fedora Project is sponsored by Redhat which invests in our infrastructure and resources to encourage collaboration and incubate innovative new technologies. It isn't about a single module... you're a smart guy... you know better. Ah. I see. To you this is just a single instance of some wider problem. Sure, OK. I'm not comfortable flipping on random filesystems as soon as they show up. Similarly, I don't think it's helpful to enable random drivers from staging just because they exist. People in general have an expectation that if something is enabled in the kernel, it works. When it doesn't, they get just as disappointed and frustrated. Again, bleeding edge at the cost of wrecking people's machines or setting unrealistic expectations is not OK with me. The part I like in the thing you quoted is ...encourage collaboration We don't get much of that on the kernel side of things in Fedora. We get requests to turn on everything, which doesn't scale without that collaboration and participation aspect. The one bright spot where we do is the secondary arch teams. They handle everything about the entire architecture themselves. I would love to have more people request something to be enabled along with an offer to help support that thing. In any event, the whole point is now moot. F2FS is out there and being actively used. Other distributions include it. Fedora should include it also. In this specific instance, maybe. In general, not really. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Naheem Zaffar naheemzaf...@gmail.com wrote: Trying to turn this discussion into something more productive and deliberately ignoring the negativity: :) What is the present position/plan for f2fs in Fedora? We'll likely enable it after looking at it a bit more. We'll deal with that in the reopened bug. It won't be a high priority item in terms of bug reports and handling. Is there any hardware out there that uses it? Aside from the hardware already mentioned in this thread, which Fedora doesn't run on, there might be some generic ARM boards that could use it. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Is there any hardware out there that uses it? Aside from the hardware already mentioned in this thread, which Fedora doesn't run on, there might be some generic ARM boards that could use it. One use that quickly comes to mind is USB Flash drives... check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2FS -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On 12/22/14 12:12 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org mailto:jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Is there any hardware out there that uses it? Aside from the hardware already mentioned in this thread, which Fedora doesn't run on, there might be some generic ARM boards that could use it. One use that quickly comes to mind is USB Flash drives... check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2FS I'm not an F2FS expert by any means, but I think that's correct. from Neil Brown's LWN writeup a while ago: f2fs is not targeted at raw flash devices, but rather at the specific hardware that is commonly available to consumers — SSDs, eMMC, SD cards, and other flash storage with an FTL (flash translation layer) already built in. I'd encourage those advocating for enabling this to put it through its paces, and see where it's at, rather than keying off phoronix ubuntu. In particular, getting [x]fstests up running on f2fs shouldn't be too hard, and it would be good to see if it uncovers any problems. There was a patch to enable it on the list: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-06/msg00030.html but it's not merged... I'll ask Dave about that. Fedora succeeds when committed people share their time effort .. can you give f2fs a go w/ [x]fstests and report back? Scratch that itch. ;) I can give you a hand running xfstests if you need it. -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Ah. I see. To you this is just a single instance of some wider problem. Sure, OK. I'm not comfortable flipping on random filesystems as soon as they show up. Similarly, I don't think it's helpful to enable random drivers from staging just because they exist. People in general have an expectation that if something is enabled in the kernel, it works. When it doesn't, they get just as disappointed and frustrated. Again, bleeding edge at the cost of wrecking people's machines or setting unrealistic expectations is not OK with me. Well, I don't think the majority of folks would agree that F2FS is some random filesystem. You'll either turn it on, or explain why not. The community can then judge for themselves. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Well, I don't think the majority of folks would agree that F2FS is some random filesystem. You'll either turn it on, or explain why not. The community can then judge for themselves. That is not how it works. The default position is to disable any feature unless there is some requirement to enable it. If you request something to be enabled, you will have to be willing to do some amount of work to make it happen. Eric has indicated what could convince Fedora kernel developers. Would you be willing to do that? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative... in this instance we're not. We're playing catch-up. The horse has already left the barn. The longer we delay, the sillier we look. The requirement is obvious. The bugzilla on it is active. They'll either turn it on, or explain why not. People can then judge for themselves. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Well, I don't think the majority of folks would agree that F2FS is some random filesystem. You'll either turn it on, or explain why not. The community can then judge for themselves. That is not how it works. The default position is to disable any feature unless there is some requirement to enable it. If you request something to be enabled, you will have to be willing to do some amount of work to make it happen. Eric has indicated what could convince Fedora kernel developers. Would you be willing to do that? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative... in this instance we're not. We're playing catch-up. The horse has already left the barn. The longer we delay, the sillier we look. The requirement is obvious. The bugzilla on it is active. Does that mean you are unwilling to do any work to convince the Fedora kernel developers? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
What exactly more do you propose? Re-create the wheel? Tests have already been run. A URL has already been posted in the bugzilla record showing a video where Dave Chinner discusses it. It's being used in consumer devices now. There is nothing to convince. The facts speak for themselves. They have all the information they need to make an informed decision. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative... in this instance we're not. We're playing catch-up. The horse has already left the barn. The longer we delay, the sillier we look. The requirement is obvious. The bugzilla on it is active. Does that mean you are unwilling to do any work to convince the Fedora kernel developers? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On 22 December 2014 at 12:19, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: What exactly more do you propose? Re-create the wheel? Tests have already been run. A URL has already been posted in the bugzilla record showing a video where Dave Chinner discusses it. It's being used in consumer devices now. There is nothing to convince. The facts speak for themselves. They have all the information they need to make an informed decision. No they do not have all the information needed. What they know is that some other distribution ships it and that it works in a device using a custom kernel. How does it work on a normal drive, how does it not work, how are the tools functioning with the toolset, what extra patchsets need to be found and gotten to make sure what is in the kernel actually works as well as it does in say the Nexus 9. Those are all tasks which need someone to work on before it can get included. A bunch of links do not actually show that it works or what is needed. They just have a bunch of soundbites. What it is going to take is someone to recompile the kernel, run the tests, and post the results.. which in a volunteer group means the people who want it need to do the work. What I am going to ask you is the following. If you are interested in this, are you interested enough to do the groundwork and be involved? If not then don't be incredulous that others have things they are more interested in that they are doing the groundwork for. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative... in this instance we're not. We're playing catch-up. The horse has already left the barn. The longer we delay, the sillier we look. The requirement is obvious. The bugzilla on it is active. Does that mean you are unwilling to do any work to convince the Fedora kernel developers? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote: No they do not have all the information needed. What they know is that some other distribution ships it and that it works in a device using a custom kernel. How does it work on a normal drive, how does it not work, how are the tools functioning with the toolset, what extra patchsets need to be found and gotten to make sure what is in the kernel actually works as well as it does in say the Nexus 9. Oy Vey! This isn't a space shuttle launch. If no one else was using this, that would be another thing. You're also making up rules that weren't applied to other products which are included in Fedora; and asking for Q/A theater to obfuscate. You can try to spin it another way, but most people aren't buying it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Am 22.12.2014 um 20:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: No they do not have all the information needed. What they know is that some other distribution ships it and that it works in a device using a custom kernel. How does it work on a normal drive, how does it not work, how are the tools functioning with the toolset, what extra patchsets need to be found and gotten to make sure what is in the kernel actually works as well as it does in say the Nexus 9. Oy Vey! This isn't a space shuttle launch. If no one else was using this, that would be another thing. You're also making up rules that weren't applied to other products which are included in Fedora; and asking for Q/A theater to obfuscate. You can try to spin it another way, but most people aren't buying it *wow* and i am accused to be abusive repeatly? what about step back and wait until it is enabled... F2FS is really not mission critical for a Workstation or Server signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: If no one else was using this, that would be another thing. You're also making up rules that weren't applied to other products which are included in Fedora; It applies to filesystems enabled in Fedora. Someone has to do the work. If you aren't volunteering that's perfectly fine but other distributions enable all sort of things that aren't enabled in Fedora and vice versa for a number of different reasons. So that by itself isn't going to be convincing. Sorry. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: *wow* and i am accused to be abusive repeatly? LOL... Yeah, it's kind of hard to gauge when to just shut-up in this group. I don't believe that I said anything abusive, and that was not my intent. If I hurt someones feelings, I am truly sorry for that. That said, if we've gotten to the point where questioning decisions is abusive, there is something wrong. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, 2014-12-22 at 11:57 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote: No they do not have all the information needed. What they know is that some other distribution ships it and that it works in a device using a custom kernel. How does it work on a normal drive, how does it not work, how are the tools functioning with the toolset, what extra patchsets need to be found and gotten to make sure what is in the kernel actually works as well as it does in say the Nexus 9. Oy Vey! This isn't a space shuttle launch. If no one else was using this, that would be another thing. You're also making up rules that weren't applied to other products which are included in Fedora; and asking for Q/A theater to obfuscate. You can try to spin it another way, but most people aren't buying it. Gerald, please moderate your tone. You are discouraging people from listening to you. To be clear, I'd like to use a car metaphor (because that's what we do, right?) to help you recognize your behavior, that you might learn from it and be more helpful in the future: You drive your brand-new minivan up to the local racetrack. You hop out of the driver's seat and walk up to the nearest mechanic. You say to this mechanic Hey, I just heard that over in Raceville they have a guy that put a Hemi in a Sienna. Stick one in my van over there and I'll race it. The mechanic stares at you, confused. He says to you I don't have any experience performing that sort of operation, nor do I have the tools. And it's not a set of skills I can see being widely useful, so it's not worth my time to learn how and buy the equipment to do it. Meanwhile, you get angry and complain that Well, the other guys can do it, so you must be able to do it too! (Of course, in that metaphor, I'm assuming you're *at least* going to offer to pay the mechanic to do the work. When you came in here and made your demands, it was strongly implied that you expected someone to expend their own time and money to please you, which is also not a good way to encourage people to do what you want.) Now, you are misunderstanding the level of effort necessary to get certain features into Fedora. It's comparatively easy to get a new application added to the distribution because it's self-contained. If it doesn't work, it will have no impact outside of itself. Traveling further down the stack, you start getting into packages that are required dependencies for other packages (such as Django or Rails). These require at least an order of magnitude more care and feeding because of the number of other packages that depend on them. It takes a more committed individual to include that in the distribution. Now let's go a little further down the stack to the platform layer. Now we have things like the python platform and glibc. These are packages that are depended on by thousands of other packages. Maintaining any one of these is likely to be the full-time job of at least one person (and likely a whole team of them). Now let's go even further down to the kernel (and specifically, the filesystem layer). We are now at pretty much the absolute lowest level. Everything on your installed system depends on this working and with no critical issues. This is the full-time job of dozens of people, with specialists in certain particular drivers. The filesystem layer is extremely fundamental, as bugs in that layer usually mean that data is lost or performance is unacceptable. This causes far-reaching issues. That's the reason that everything that goes into the kernel is *very* carefully vetted and tested. Well, most of the time; to use the specific example you cited earlier in this thread, btrfs went in far before it was ready because the btrfs developers committed to dealing with the fallout. The btrfs developers have repeatedly and publicly stated that btrfs is not production-ready (regardless of what certain other distros claim) and Fedora is wise to listen. F2FS is perfectly welcome in Fedora, as long as a sufficient set of people are willing to do the stabilization and testing work necessary for that inclusion. Demanding that a feature you want must be in the distribution is not only unhelpful, it's actually insulting to all of the people who work hard to see that Fedora is both leading *and* actually stable for use. If you are not capable of maintaining it, then your best bet would be to go to the *upstream* developers of F2FS and ask *them* to volunteer to maintain the driver in Fedora. That would have a far higher chance of success than ranting on the Fedora lists. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Please accept my apologies. My initial post was sufficient to make my point. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2014-12-22 at 11:57 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote: No they do not have all the information needed. What they know is that some other distribution ships it and that it works in a device using a custom kernel. How does it work on a normal drive, how does it not work, how are the tools functioning with the toolset, what extra patchsets need to be found and gotten to make sure what is in the kernel actually works as well as it does in say the Nexus 9. Oy Vey! This isn't a space shuttle launch. If no one else was using this, that would be another thing. You're also making up rules that weren't applied to other products which are included in Fedora; and asking for Q/A theater to obfuscate. You can try to spin it another way, but most people aren't buying it. Gerald, please moderate your tone. You are discouraging people from listening to you. To be clear, I'd like to use a car metaphor (because that's what we do, right?) to help you recognize your behavior, that you might learn from it and be more helpful in the future: You drive your brand-new minivan up to the local racetrack. You hop out of the driver's seat and walk up to the nearest mechanic. You say to this mechanic Hey, I just heard that over in Raceville they have a guy that put a Hemi in a Sienna. Stick one in my van over there and I'll race it. The mechanic stares at you, confused. He says to you I don't have any experience performing that sort of operation, nor do I have the tools. And it's not a set of skills I can see being widely useful, so it's not worth my time to learn how and buy the equipment to do it. Meanwhile, you get angry and complain that Well, the other guys can do it, so you must be able to do it too! (Of course, in that metaphor, I'm assuming you're *at least* going to offer to pay the mechanic to do the work. When you came in here and made your demands, it was strongly implied that you expected someone to expend their own time and money to please you, which is also not a good way to encourage people to do what you want.) Now, you are misunderstanding the level of effort necessary to get certain features into Fedora. It's comparatively easy to get a new application added to the distribution because it's self-contained. If it doesn't work, it will have no impact outside of itself. Traveling further down the stack, you start getting into packages that are required dependencies for other packages (such as Django or Rails). These require at least an order of magnitude more care and feeding because of the number of other packages that depend on them. It takes a more committed individual to include that in the distribution. Now let's go a little further down the stack to the platform layer. Now we have things like the python platform and glibc. These are packages that are depended on by thousands of other packages. Maintaining any one of these is likely to be the full-time job of at least one person (and likely a whole team of them). Now let's go even further down to the kernel (and specifically, the filesystem layer). We are now at pretty much the absolute lowest level. Everything on your installed system depends on this working and with no critical issues. This is the full-time job of dozens of people, with specialists in certain particular drivers. The filesystem layer is extremely fundamental, as bugs in that layer usually mean that data is lost or performance is unacceptable. This causes far-reaching issues. That's the reason that everything that goes into the kernel is *very* carefully vetted and tested. Well, most of the time; to use the specific example you cited earlier in this thread, btrfs went in far before it was ready because the btrfs developers committed to dealing with the fallout. The btrfs developers have repeatedly and publicly stated that btrfs is not production-ready (regardless of what certain other distros claim) and Fedora is wise to listen. F2FS is perfectly welcome in Fedora, as long as a sufficient set of people are willing to do the stabilization and testing work necessary for that inclusion. Demanding that a feature you want must be in the distribution is not only unhelpful, it's actually insulting to all of the people who work hard to see that Fedora is both leading *and* actually stable for use. If you are not capable of maintaining it, then your best bet would be to go to the *upstream* developers of F2FS and ask *them* to volunteer to maintain the driver in Fedora. That would have a far higher chance of success than ranting on the Fedora lists. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: Please accept my apologies. My initial post was sufficient to make my point. Your post had sufficient information for us to reevaluate F2FS, yes. Thanks for that. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Your post had sufficient information for us to reevaluate F2FS, yes. Thanks for that. You're very welcome. Glad I could help. Thanks for keeping an open mind and taking the time to reevaluate. It is much appreciated. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
I was wanting to play around with F2FS about 6 months ago, found it wasn't yet included in the F20 kernel (even though Fedora packages f2fs-tools?). I did a quick search and found some comments basically saying it was under heavy development, stay away, etc. etc. so I kinda forgot about it. Today I see an article on Phoronix: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTg3MDQ which wonders why Fedora doesn't ship it. Then, it says Ubuntu and other distributions are shipping it? I then find out that the Nexus 9 tablet uses it as its default file system... So, Ubuntu and other distributions ship it... Google is using it for their latest tablets, yet Fedora says it isn't ready to ship? Something isn't right. I thought Fedora was suppose to be on the leading edge. Is this some sort of political thing with Redhat/Samsung? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
On 12/21/2014 07:48 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: I was wanting to play around with F2FS about 6 months ago, found it wasn't yet included in the F20 kernel (even though Fedora packages f2fs-tools?). I did a quick search and found some comments basically saying it was under heavy development, stay away, etc. etc. so I kinda forgot about it. Today I see an article on Phoronix: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTg3MDQ which wonders why Fedora doesn't ship it. Then, it says Ubuntu and other distributions are shipping it? I then find out that the Nexus 9 tablet uses it as its default file system... So, Ubuntu and other distributions ship it... Google is using it for their latest tablets, yet Fedora says it isn't ready to ship? Something isn't right. I thought Fedora was suppose to be on the leading edge. Is this some sort of political thing with Redhat/Samsung? Not much info at the old request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972446 but that would be the place to ask I would think. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA DivisionFAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?
Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I thought I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route. Based upon the information I discovered tonight it seems a bit puzzling it isn't included. Seriously, Ubuntu includes it and we don't? Google is using it for the Nexus 9? The experimental rationale just doesn't hold weight - especially since we are allowing for BTRFS Raid5/6; which is made out to be toxic. If it's good enough for Google and ahem: Ubuntu - it's beyond ridiculous we don't have it. On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote: On 12/21/2014 07:48 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: I was wanting to play around with F2FS about 6 months ago, found it wasn't yet included in the F20 kernel (even though Fedora packages f2fs-tools?). I did a quick search and found some comments basically saying it was under heavy development, stay away, etc. etc. so I kinda forgot about it. Today I see an article on Phoronix: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTg3MDQ which wonders why Fedora doesn't ship it. Then, it says Ubuntu and other distributions are shipping it? I then find out that the Nexus 9 tablet uses it as its default file system... So, Ubuntu and other distributions ship it... Google is using it for their latest tablets, yet Fedora says it isn't ready to ship? Something isn't right. I thought Fedora was suppose to be on the leading edge. Is this some sort of political thing with Redhat/Samsung? Not much info at the old request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ show_bug.cgi?id=972446 but that would be the place to ask I would think. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA DivisionFAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
