On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjo...@redhat.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:12:34AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote: > > > So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely > > > must be fixed before it can become the default > > > > I'd agree, though I'd have a different list of pet bugs. > > > > But that's a subjective judgement. I'd be the first to admit that I'm > > pretty risk averse, especially when it comes to losing data and > > rendering machines unbootable. > > I think both of us are making a subjective judgement. For myself, I > "want to believe" in btrfs, having championed immutable > state/wandering trees, and real databases for many years. > > BUT I'm deeply unhappy about data corrupting bugs being effectively > ignored by upstream for months. That's not good. > > I see no data corruption bugs that have been reported that are being ignored, link to the email? The invalidate stuff was causing problems (not a btrfs problem, we just got hurt by it the most), and it looks like those were cleared up. I'm working on the only data corruption problem I know of at the moment and it's not super clear its a data corruption problem. Thanks, Josef
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
