On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 07:30:44PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Daniel Baumann [Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:24:14 +0100]:
>
> > Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > I know Daniel doesn't agree, so I'll wait a couple days before
> > > proceeding with the removal in case he wants to provide a good rationale
> > > as for why this package (in its current version) should be part of a
> > > stable Debian release. Daniel?
>
> > since the description clearly states that it is experimental, it's
> > better to have it in than out because it makes backporting easier
> > (limits interdiffs), gets more attention by people.
>
> What is the action to take if a user installs btrfs in stable, finds a
> "data loss" bug, and reports it as grave? "Sorry, although you installed
> this from stable this software is experimental and you should've read
> the description and anyway the bug you report does not happen in the
> version in backports.org."?
>
> > however, there is no point having btrfs in without btrfs-tools, and for
> > btrfs-tools see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495562#46
>
> That is moot because, should I change my opinion about btrfs, I'd let
> btrfs-tools back.
I concur that btrfs should rather be excluded from the release by now. Many
people won't read the package description and since btrfs is about to be
merged into mainline kernel soon any people willing to experiment will
be better served with a current stock kernel than an outdated development
snapshot from August 2008.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
