The language being used by Anaconda team suggests the "Btrfs is not a
priority" and should be unsupported, is a decision that has already
happened. This discussion, in this thread, is about how to handle that
decision in UI/Ux. When and where did this decision get made? How do
outside contributors
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 5:10 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 15:19 +0200, Vendula Poncova wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:02 AM Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 13:38 -0400, David Lehman wrote:
> > > > On Fri,
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 01:43:00PM -0400, David Lehman wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 18:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 13:38 -0400, David Lehman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 12:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > Hey folks!
> > >
> > > Hi Adam! Thanks for
On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 18:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 13:38 -0400, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 12:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hey folks!
> >
> > Hi Adam! Thanks for bringing this up again.
> >
> > > So...what should we do? Here are the
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:02 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 13:38 -0400, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 12:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hey folks!
> >
> > Hi Adam! Thanks for bringing this up again.
> >
> > > So...what should we do? Here are the options
On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 12:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
Hi Adam! Thanks for bringing this up again.
> So...what should we do? Here are the options as I see 'em:
>
> 1. Keep supporting btrfs
> 2. Just modify the criterion with a btrfs exception, even if it's
> weird
> 3. Rewrite
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 4:23 AM wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 14:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 13:25 -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > > Josh, to be fair, I can see Neal's point here. In a way you seem
> > > > to be
> > > > kinda sending him in circles here:
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 14:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 13:25 -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > Josh, to be fair, I can see Neal's point here. In a way you seem
> > > to be
> > > kinda sending him in circles here: "anaconda team doesn't have
> > > the
> > >
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 16:54 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:02 PM David Cantrell
> wrote:
> > On 8/27/19 2:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > The Fedora working group's technical specification states Btrfs
> > > is to
> > > be the default. Yet the working group has said it's
On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 15:59 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On one hand I understand all of the consternation around making btrfs bugs
> > blockers for Fedora, but on the other hand it seems a bit silly to be having
> > this conversation at all based on hitting a bug that went into the merge
> >
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:07 PM Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Fedora chugs along at the rate of daily upstream Linus snapshots. If
> > you're hitting and fixing issues before Fedora users see them, I'm
> > curious why Fedora users would
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:30 PM Laura Abbott wrote:
>
>
> > I also think there are other perspectives that might at least
> > potentially be useful here. Right now we've mainly heard from a couple
> > of community folks who are very passionate about btrfs, and Red Hat
> > folks from
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:40 PM Josef Bacik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:35:39PM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > On 8/28/19 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:40 PM Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:35:39PM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > On 8/28/19 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > > On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:35:39PM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 8/28/19 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On 8/27/19 2:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:25 AM David Cantrell wrote:
>>
>> The installer team rejecting btrfs patches is going to be based on their
>> resources to support the functionality. I would say "btrfs in Fedora"
>> needs a FESCo decision to set expectations
On 8/27/19 12:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 08:57 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>> There *was* a PR submitted. It was even a one-liner because the
>>> contributor fixed the underlying problem elsewhere. It's been in limbo
>>> for over a year:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:02 PM David Cantrell wrote:
>
> On 8/27/19 2:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > The Fedora working group's technical specification states Btrfs is to
> > be the default. Yet the working group has said it's uncomfortable
> > taking action on this decision expressly because
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 13:25 -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
>
> > Josh, to be fair, I can see Neal's point here. In a way you seem to be
> > kinda sending him in circles here: "anaconda team doesn't have the
> > time/resources to invest in btrfs development, but you can help by
> > sending them pull
References:
FESCo, make Btrfs the default
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-06-08/fesco.2011-06-08-17.30.log.html
Workstation working group's technical specification, make btrfs default
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification
A point of reference
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:25 AM David Cantrell wrote:
>
> The installer team rejecting btrfs patches is going to be based on their
> resources to support the functionality. I would say "btrfs in Fedora"
> needs a FESCo decision to set expectations and policy for the project.
> Is it something
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 08:57 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > There *was* a PR submitted. It was even a one-liner because the
> > contributor fixed the underlying problem elsewhere. It's been in limbo
> > for over a year: https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/1375
> >
> > You seem to think
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:17 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> Hey folks!
>
> So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> this got accepted as a release blocker:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388
>
> The bug was fixed, so that's fine, but along the
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:57 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:48 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Josh Boyer
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM Josh Boyer
> >
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:48 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM Josh Boyer
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:19 AM Neal Gompa
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM Josh Boyer
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:19 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:55 AM wrote:
> > > > >
r"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 2:09:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:19 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> >
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:19 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:55 AM wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 23:54 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:16 AM wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I understand them. The point is, for them and even us (the
> > > > installer)
>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:55 AM wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 23:54 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:16 AM wrote:
> > >
> > > I understand them. The point is, for them and even us (the
> > > installer)
> > > is work on BTRFS not a priority. It's something we can't
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 23:54 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:16 AM wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-08-24 at 07:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 19:00 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:17 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> Hey folks!
>
> So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> this got accepted as a release blocker:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388
>
> The bug was fixed, so that's fine, but along the
On 8/23/19 1:10 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 3:48 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:17 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
Hey folks!
So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
this got accepted as a release blocker:
On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
this got accepted as a release blocker:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388
Summary: This bug was introduced
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes
> wrote:
>
>> From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
>> filesystems. I don't think that anything else should be release
>> blocking.
>
>
> If this is the case, we can
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:00 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> > this got accepted as a release blocker:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388
>
>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:16 AM wrote:
> I understand them. The point is, for them and even us (the installer)
> is work on BTRFS not a priority. It's something we can't benefit on
> RHEL and it could be almost completely replaced by LVM + xfs solution.
> However, it still giving us bugs and
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:16 AM wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-08-24 at 07:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 19:00 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> >> this got accepted as a release blocker:
> >>
> >>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:48 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> >
> > All of this, the criteria, and the UI support for btrfs are from the
> > many years old proposal to make btrfs the default filesystem. In the
> > beginning, it was not ready,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> All of this, the criteria, and the UI support for btrfs are from the
> many years old proposal to make btrfs the default filesystem. In the
> beginning, it was not ready, but did show promise. This proposal came
> up for several releases
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 19:33 +0200, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
> > > filesystems. I don't think that
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
> filesystems. I don't think that anything else should be release
> blocking.
If this is the case, we can explicitly list the supported file systems in
criteria. The list
On Sat, 2019-08-24 at 07:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 19:00 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken,
> > > and
> > > this got accepted as a
On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 16:10 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 3:48 PM Justin Forbes
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> > > Hey folks!
> > >
> > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken,
> > > and
> > > this got
On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 19:00 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> > this got accepted as a release blocker:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388
>
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> this got accepted as a release blocker:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388
Summary: This bug was introduced and discovered in linux-next, it
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 3:48 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:17 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks!
> >
> > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> > this got accepted as a release blocker:
> >
> >
48 matches
Mail list logo
