From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f44.google.com ([209.85.218.44]:33084 "EHLO mail-oi0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbcFDCgR (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2016 22:36:17 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f44.google.com with SMTP id k23so154081835oih.0 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:36:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1465006419.6648.54.camel@scientia.net> References: <1464819934.6742.71.camel@scientia.net> <1464975482.6679.11.camel@scientia.net> <1465006419.6648.54.camel@scientia.net> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:36:15 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: btrfs From: Chris Murphy To: Christoph Anton Mitterer Cc: Brendan Hide , Btrfs BTRFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > If there would be e.g. an kept-up-to-date wiki page about the status > and current perils of e.g. RAID5/6, people (like me) wouldn't ask every > weeks, saving the devs' time. Well up until 4.6, there was a rather clear "Btrfs is under heavy development, and is not suitable for-any uses other than benchmarking and review." statement in kernel documentation. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/diff/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt?id=v4.6&id2=v4.5 There's no longer such a strongly worded caution in that document, nor in the wiki. The wiki has stale information still, but it's a volunteer effort like everything else Btrfs related. -- Chris Murphy