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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
