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 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 br
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: "anaco
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 eve
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 anaconda/kerne
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 2
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 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 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
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 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 the
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 th
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:00 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 the Federal kernel
> team's official recommendation i
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 th
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:49 AM Samantha Bueno wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:17 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > 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. Re
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 wrot
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:
> > > > >
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:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 23:54 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > > On
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:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 23:54 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:16 AM wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand
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:
So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
this got accepted as a release blo
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 benefit
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 an
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
>
> S
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
starte
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:
https://bugzilla.redhat
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:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bu
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 way,
35 matches
Mail list logo
