-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/26/2014 11:42 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:14 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:59:00PM +0000, Colin Walters wrote: >>>> Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, >>>> even if that thing isn't ready. I really don't want to wade >>>> through tons of bug reports for btrfs just because it has a >>>> lot of hype. >>> Also, right now cloud is plain old ext4. Let's see if we can >>> ship *all* of the filesystems! It'll be fun! >> >> Cloud could switch to XFS along with server. The main problem is >> that it'd make us revisit booting -- either 1) some work into >> lightening up grub2, 2) testing and possibly enhancing syslinux's >> xfs support, or 3) a separate /boot with a different filesystem. >> I don't really love any of those options. > > I'm always dubious of 'there shall be only one' decrees - be it > installers or desktop environments or file systems. > I have no problems (personally) about allowing the different products to select different default filesystems. The reason people choose different filesystems is to serve different workloads, so I think this is just an extension of that. > Also, as has already been pointed out: there are Fedora systems > out there using ext4, xfs, btrfs and probably a few other file > systems today. If we now suddenly change track and consider btrfs > not 'safe enough', wasn't it pretty irresponsible of us to let > people use it for their installations ? > I think we're saying "it's not stable enough for the *default*". That's a different statement from "it's not stable enough for use". > For the workstation, I think the options are > > - switch to btrfs soon to give it the exposure it needs to get > ready (while being careful to limit the supported features, as suse > does) > I'm slightly in favor of this for the Workstation, personally. Without wide adoption, btrfs will never get any better.