Another defrag question

Commit Message

David Sterba Feb. 21, 2013, 9:56 p.m. UTC

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:58:16PM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 06:47 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
> > Le 21/02/2013 18:25, Hugo Mills a écrit :
> >> Correct. But btrfs isn't at that stage yet. It's getting visibly
> >> closer, but it's not quite there. Hence the very strong recommendation
> >> to keep up with the latest code. Hugo. 
> > 
> > The matter is that BTRFS had many early adopters just because it is -
> > and has been for long now - in the mainline Linux kernel, so supposed
> > stable and good choice for the future.
> > 
> > To be honest (and not wanting to troll, promised) this is the only
> > single reason for which I use BTRFS on 5 of my 6 machines at home - just
> > because I thought that "Just upgrade the distro every 6 months and it
> > will become better and better over time, no hassle, make my life easy".
> > 
> 
> Unfortunately many distros don't make it obvious, but Btrfs is still
> hidden behind a giant EXPERIMENTAL label in the kernel configuration.

Removed in 3.9-rc1 as a part of a broad Kconfig cleanup

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=38db331b578005d32155bb6f6a80654ef127cff5

 The CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL config item has not carried much meaning for a
 while now and is almost always enabled by default. As agreed during the
 Linux kernel summit, remove it from any "depends on" lines in Kconfigs.

---

is it still experimental then?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Bardur Arantsson Feb. 22, 2013, 5:55 a.m. UTC | #1

On 02/21/2013 10:56 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:58:16PM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 06:47 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
>>> Le 21/02/2013 18:25, Hugo Mills a écrit :
>>>> Correct. But btrfs isn't at that stage yet. It's getting visibly
>>>> closer, but it's not quite there. Hence the very strong recommendation
>>>> to keep up with the latest code. Hugo. 
>>>
>>> The matter is that BTRFS had many early adopters just because it is -
>>> and has been for long now - in the mainline Linux kernel, so supposed
>>> stable and good choice for the future.
>>>
>>> To be honest (and not wanting to troll, promised) this is the only
>>> single reason for which I use BTRFS on 5 of my 6 machines at home - just
>>> because I thought that "Just upgrade the distro every 6 months and it
>>> will become better and better over time, no hassle, make my life easy".
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately many distros don't make it obvious, but Btrfs is still
>> hidden behind a giant EXPERIMENTAL label in the kernel configuration.
> 
> Removed in 3.9-rc1 as a part of a broad Kconfig cleanup
> 
[--snip--]
> 
> is it still experimental then?

Interesting, but IMO having the experimental label taken off is a
necessary, but not sufficient condition for $X to be considered stable :).

Regards,

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch

--- a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
+++ b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ 
 config BTRFS_FS
-       tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
-       depends on EXPERIMENTAL
+       tristate "Btrfs filesystem Unstable disk format"
        select LIBCRC32C
        select ZLIB_INFLATE
        select ZLIB_DEFLATE