> These aren't really very convincing arguments. In fact, the last one is a > good counter point: if it were in that bad of a shape, then either opensuse > wouldn't be using it as the default, or they would be getting a LOT of flack > for it. That wasn't an argument, just a note.
> I'm not even sure what you mean about the mailing lists; ext4 is also > supported via a mailing list. But not as exclusively as btrfs. After researching my references above I came to the conclusion that there's no longer an absolute necessity of the warning I suggested/requested. I would say now that a warning with the information that btrfs is certainly less stable than ext4 (not in stable-unstable- dichotomy, but on a free scale) - based on the maturity and the simplicity of the latter - would find one or two grateful users. I leave this to you now and am available for further questions. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1406043 Title: add btrfs instability warning to installation routine To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/1406043/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
