On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:56 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 08:05:34PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> Others have pointed out that the RHEL7 client uses XFS already. I'm
>>> of the opinion that ext4 vs. XFS is pretty comparable for most cases,
>>> so I have no strong objections either way.
>> I'd really like to have the discussion about whether btrfs is still a
>> medium-term goal.
> I don't think a broader conversation on Btrfs is in scope for the Workstation
tech spec. What I think is relevant right now, is whether there should still be a Btrfs
guided partitioning option, which is what we currently have in Fedora 20 and older. Or if
there shall only be the default.
> It's curiously ostensible to say we'll use Btrfs when it's ready in maybe
a year, but then drop it as an alternate easy install option. I also think it's
appropriate to label it in the pop-up with "Preview" or "Work in
> I propose for automatic/guided partitioning:
> Default=LVM with XFS
> Alternate = none
> Default= Standard Partitioning (ext4)
> Alternate = Btrfs – Preview
So now we have three guided paths to test, which is barely an
improvement on four?
The above language isn't well qualified on my part, it's just an idea that the
Workstation WG consider. I'm not married to the Btrfs alternate, and it's
debatable whether it improves Btrfs test coverage anyway.
I thought we had previously agreed that we wanted
to cut these down as far as possible. :(
You're right, we had. The "as far as possible" means Workstation and Server
agree with each other on a default, with no alternate. And I still agree that's the