On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Josef Bacik <jo...@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Matthias Clasen <mcla...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 13:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Gerald B. Cox <gb...@bzb.us> wrote: >>> > Thanks James... I am aware of all the warnings. They might as well put >>> > up a >>> > skull & crossbones. I have all my data backed up twice. But this is my >>> > point... you don't say toxic and then simultaneously talk about proposing >>> > it >>> > as the default file system on Fedora. >>> >>> Right... no single person is saying both things. We don't have >>> split-personality disorder here. Someone started discussing it as >>> default, and a bunch of other people chimed in that it wasn't ready. >>> Until those concerns are dealt with, it's not really even a candidate >>> for default consideration. >> >> I think the point is somewhat valid though. To just keep repeating the >> mantra 'its not ready' is not going to make it any more ready. If suse >> can identify a stable subset of btrfs features and use it as their >> default file system with those restrictions, why can't we do the same ? >> The approach makes sense to me, at least... >> > > Because they still have the support staff for when users don't listen, > Fedora doesn't.
Right. As an aside, I looked at their 3.16.2-1.1.gdcee397 kernel-source SRPM. I can't find any patches that limit btrfs usage. I could totally be wrong, but if someone knows of a patch that limits the features please point me to 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
