I also think there are other perspectives that might at least
potentially be useful here. Right now we've mainly heard from a couple
of community folks who are very passionate about btrfs, and Red Hat
folks from anaconda/kernel development and RHEL management who
essentially see it as a burden that is not aligned with their
priorities. Is that all the perspectives we have to make a decision
with? I think we should at least talk to the Facebook team that
apparently uses btrfs on Fedora extensively about whether they'd be sad
to see installer btrfs support die and, if so, whether they'd perhaps
be interested in helping support it. And more broadly, community folks
on all the lists this is going to: are there more people who actually
are interested in this functionality and would be sad to see it go? If
btrfs isn't a part of Red Hat's product roadmaps but is important to
lots of folks in the wider Fedora community, maybe that's another
indicator we can use....or indeed, if it turns out not many folks
actually care.
As an on the record btrfs skeptic, I think it would help to have an end-to-end picture of
what's missing or needs to be added across all packages. If someone comes to me today
and says "I want to help btrfs be successful in Fedora", I'd like to know
where to point them besides just suggesting they get added on the btrfs kernel alias.