There is no valid argument for no, other than ignorance.
XFS is more widely used and considerably more stable than btrfs, if that low rent zfs wannabe is supported OOTB then xfs should also.
Hey - my point is valid! Just not important or decisiveā¦ 
Overall I would say XFS is a good choice to add in terms of reliability - which is number one for me!
whats about ntfs? 
A valid argument isnāt needed. No one has to justify their decisions as it is not yours to make nor mine. If a person sayās no. They do so of their own reasons. No explanation is required. This is all nonsense because you can have xfs if you want it. No one has to spoon feed it to you. Do we need an automatic manual partitioner also? With xfs?
1 Like
Already given. Xfs is one of the most widely used and stable file systems on the planet.
If something as immature and (still!) incomplete as btrfs is included before xfs then something is wrong.
I wouldnāt use btrfs if you paid me.
If I was going to use a CoW filesystem it would be zfs every day of the week ā¦ and twice on Sunday.
This not about spoon feeding. This is about convenience to install EndeavourOS with a default partition scheme but with XFS filesystem. This is a reasonable request.
Well, if a user, like me, is asking for a new a feature or a new option for a piece of software it is common behavior among developers to give good reason if the feature request is turned down. This is just a matter of social interaction and engagement with the community. And this is happening here. And this is good.
4 Likes
Convenience=Bloat! 
1 Like
No, they donāt have to. They can take it under consideration but they are not entitled or required to give a reason why it was not implemented in the free system. Unless this is a bespoke system a user paid for and then the devs need to come up with a good reason to explain why a feature request was turned down.
3 Likes
You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that they āhave toā or āare requested to doā or āare entitled to doā. I said that it is common behavior among developers that they do.
2 Likes
I think your opinion of btrfs is based on the past versus the actual present. Btrfs is used extensively in Enterprise applications at this time. If it was as unstable as you suggest it would not be.
That being said XFS is a great fs particularly for large storage devices, where you may not want to pool them in a large array. I tend to run most of my large storage in raid 1, or raid 10, exclusively on XFS. It has a mature set of recovery tools. The only disadvantage is that you canāt shrink and XFS partitionā¦of course you should never shrink a partition anyway.
XFS is also the default on most server install media. So yes, please do include it as an easily accessible option.
1 Like
All this wrangling over a change like this? Holy smokes!!! As Nike says: āJust Do It!ā
PS. I made this same change to my own Ezarcher Calamares setup. No Problem!
2 Likes
Yeah, adding āxfsā is BLOAT, so it seems 
1 Like
BLOAT = 42 bits added to the configuration file. 
Btw, 14 bits can be shaved off by eliminating the spaces between the choices:
availableFileSystemTypes: ["ext4", "btrfs", "xfs"]
4 Likes
Thatās not common among developers. Thatās the PR people. Developers donāt like to mingle with users that much because they tend to ask the developers about requested features and why they didnāt implement those. Because to a user, every feature request is important but to a dev, every feature request is an added bug (or they can make a bug into a new feature).
2 Likes
Thatās way too much, we canāt afford it!
2 Likes
It is pretty common on open source projects where there are no āPR peopleā.
Usually when a feature request is closed it is done so with some type of reason. The requester might not like or agree with the reason, but there usually is one even if it is terse.
I was being sarcastic. Really?