On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan(a)jonmasters.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can
do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I
don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am
concerned that this will lead to less testing and exposure to full LVM
use within the Fedora community. Instead, I'd like to counter-propose
that everything stay exactly as it is, with users being able to elect to
switch to BTRFS (sub)volumes if they are interested in doing so.
Should the switch to BTRFS by default happen, this will be one more
thing I will have to fix immediately during installation. The list grows
longer and longer over time - please don't make this change.
Oh god changes how dare we even think about those evil things!
Now seriously we cannot make progress when every time a (bigger)
change is proposed people start screaming "but this changes what we
and regarding this particular case I think LVM by default has pretty
much always been a bad idea anyway.
And it is not like installing an OS is something you do everyday so
you install your OS, do the changes you think are necessary and be
done with it.
Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best
experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the
past" (i.e stagnation).