On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Laura Abbott <labbott(a)redhat.com> 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 and we can add whoever we want on here.
I'm okay with keeping btrfs alive if there's enough of a community who
is willing to actually fix bugs and work through the issues. We
do this with other parts of the kernel too.
Past Fedora kernel team statements officially recommended against
Btrfs. I think it would be weird to make Btrfs the default file
system, were that still the case. And one way to alleviate that, it
sounds like, is if there were a Btrfs developer on the Fedora kernel
team in some capacity, even if it is strictly Btrfs bugs. But I'm open
to other ideas.
And if it's just a case of release criteria violating Btrfs bugs
remaining blocker worthy, then I think it can go either way.
I think 3-5 are the best options right now with a focus on having
btrfs
be available but not "supported". If we had a group of people who were
willing to actively debug issues like the one Adam reported, I'd be okay
with #1.
I'm on the fedora-kernel-btrfs@ since February, and also supposedly
get btrfs-progs bug notifications. And I've been on linux-btrfs@
since early days, they know who I am, even though I can't code my way
out of a hat. They've always been responsive when I show them bugs I
can reproduce.
--
Chris Murphy