On 09/15/2016 04:25 AM, Kushal Das wrote: > On 14/09/16, Adam Miller wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dusty Mabe <du...@dustymabe.com> wrote: >>> >>> In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After >>> discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they recommend >>> waiting to move to overlayfs as the default in F26. >>> >>> I think this will work well because it will give us some time to allow >>> people to "try" overlayfs in F25 (we should provide good docs on this) >>> and then give us feedback before we go with it as default in F26. If >>> the feedback is bad then maybe we wouldn't even go with it in F26, but >>> hopefully that won't be the case. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> Seems a little conservative, but I'm not opposed. >> >> I've been under the impression that part of the point of the Two Week >> Release cycle was to be able to deliver new stuff faster and fix >> issues faster but playing it safe isn't inherently a bad approach >> either. > For two week atomic we are not tied with the Fedora 25 release cycle. We > can enable it in our release when we think it is ready for the > consumers. It does not have to wait F26 release. For example we see it > is in good condition after one week of F25 release, we can then enable > it default in the next 2WA release. >
That is correct, but changing a default like that might be a bad idea. My opinion is that it should happen on a major release boundary. The user still has the option to choose to user overlayfs if they want. Dusty _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
