Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread Chris Murphy
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 maki

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread Chris Murphy
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Laura Abbott wrote: > > I don't think we need someone to join the team per se. All we need is > someone who we can assign bugs to and have them work through the issues, > whether that's development or working with upstream to test. We have > a fedora-btrfs bug alias

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread Neal Gompa
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 were

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread Neal Gompa
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: > >> > >> http

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread Neal Gompa
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, but

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread Chris Murphy
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 in

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread Adam Williamson
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 anyth

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread Kamil Paral
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 would

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread jkonecny
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 relea

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-26 Thread jkonecny
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 acce