Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Laura Abbott <[email protected]> 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