Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th May 2010 22:23 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "UDS is over! And in the customary wrap-up I stood up and told the audience what the Foundations team have been discussing all week. One of the items is almost certainly going to get a little bit of publicity. We are going to be doing the work to have btrfs as an installation option, and we have not ruled out making it the default. I do stress the emphasis of that statement, a number of things would have to be true for us to take that decision."
Thread beginning with comment 424615
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Great!
by Fettarme H-Milch on Sat 15th May 2010 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Great!"
Fettarme H-Milch
Member since:

more users testing btrfs would be a terrible hindrance to development!?

So your counter-argument to the fact that Canonical is not willing to do actual programming work on btrfs is that it's a good thing that Josef Bacik from Red Hat and Chris Mason from Oracle are now supposed to be obligated to waste their time searching through Launchpad for bugs in Ubuntu's implementation in btrfs?

Considering that Canonical was not able to properly back-port a Fedora Xorg patch for GLX 1.4 (causing a massive memory leak that affected neither upstream Xorg, nor Fedora) and needed to break the feature freeze by reverting to GLX 1.2 in the late RC phase of Ubuntu 10.04, I guess the work of the geniuses at Canonical causes more headaches to upstream devs than "more testers" are worth it....

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Great!
by aaronb on Sat 15th May 2010 12:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Great!"
aaronb Member since:

It was a flippant comment in response to your sarcastic post (you are taking things a little too seriously).

The memory leak may have not been caught if there was less testers. How are the developers obligated to search through launchpad?

Why does Ubuntu make it harder for upstream?

Fedora 13 has been delayed from the 18/5/2010 to 25/5/2010, it makes them no better or worse than Ubuntu in terms of issues near release.

To note I like Fedora and Ubuntu equally. I just don't understand why people try to such the life out of projects when they are at least considering implementing something new.

Edited 2010-05-15 12:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Great!
by Rahul on Sat 15th May 2010 17:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Great!"
Rahul Member since:

Since you mentioned Fedora, I would like to note a few things:

* Upstream does get affected if a downstream patches something badly and bug reports get filed upstream. This is a common problem and patches needs to be avoided as much as possible unless you have the expertise to do them properly and carefully.

* A major distribution that relies on support and services to make money need to be strong upstream developers or atleast get enough staff to fix problems rather than try to offload it to another distribution

* Fedora's standpoint of having a published release criteria and the willingness to postpone releases if the blocker bugs are not fixed does affect the quality of the release although delays should be avoided when possible to do so.

Reply Parent Score: 3