On Sun 22 March 2015 01:42:33 devuan.kn@??? wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber -
> reisenweber@???
>
> <devuan.kn.d76efe93d7.reisenweber#web.de@???> wrote:
> > Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for
> > /,
> The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least
> common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress.

From
*"root fs: any you like, even MSDOS (with some limitations)" *
to an undiscussed unsolicited
*"root fs: btrfs mandatory"*
is *not* the kind of "progress" I want to see happen, ever.

It trades in quite a set of nice properties for a few new properties percieved
"superior" by a small set of developers who think they're the ones to decide
(or "the universe spins around them" as some guy said) and were allowed to
ignore the notion of significant parts of their users and developer peers.

Odds are those properties they're sacrificing are actually urgently needed by
quite a number of installations, and probably the new featureset could as well
get achived *without* *sacrificing* backward compatibility.


For your usecase: btrfs is around already, snapper is too, who needs those
massive changes in packaging of a distro and file hierarchy?