[Bug 1872065] [NEW] 'writable' should not be introduced as a new label for persistence partition in Ubuntu 20.04

[Akeo]

Public bug reported:

This is a follow up on
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/casper/+bug/1863672 since a
handful of Ubuntu users and software developers do have a valid concern
that a change, that could have very negative consequences, is being
introduced in 20.04 with little or not oversight, and that, so far, our
efforts to have this reviewed have been all but fruitless.

The root of the matter is that, as of the current 20.04 daily builds,
the casper package plans to introduce a *new* 'writable' label,
alongside existing 'casper-rw' label, as a means to detect persistent
partitions.

Our concern is that the choice for the new label appears to seemingly
have been decided by a single person, outside of any consultation with
other Ubuntu maintainers, and is based on a very flimsy foundation.

For one thing, many of us think that there is little need to introduce a
new alternate label for persistent partition, where the label it is
meant to replace ('casper-rw') was more than good enough for its
purpose.

As per #1863672, the maintainer who introduced the label justified their
choice by indicating that they thought 'casper-rw' was too obtuse and
that 'writable' would be clearer, but we actually think this will be
shifting the problem in the completely opposite direction, with
'writable' being way to generic to provide anything of value to end
users to indicate why the partition is labelled that way (at least,
'casper-rw' indicates that this has something to do with 'casper', which
is a searchable term that least to an explanation about persistence,
whereas 'writable' will never accomplish the same thing).

Also, if a new "more generic" label for persistent partition is to be
introduced, we would STRONGLY advise Ubuntu to use this as an
opportunity to bridge the gap with regards to what other distributions,
such as Debian, use as labels for persistent partitions, and therefore
instead go for the current *GENERIC* label that Debian Live settled on,
which is 'persistence' (as referenced in
https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/538665/314167 and other location).

Much better than 'writable', 'persistence', while being more generic and
less obtuse than 'casper-rw', would certainly provide an indication to
Ubuntu end users as to the nature of the partition they are dealing
with, even if they have no clue about persistence.

Otherwise, we are confident that there are going to be unfamiliar Ubuntu
users, who are exploring a drive in a partition manager and see only
'writable' as an indication for what a partition is being used for,
choosing to delete that partition on account that they have no idea that
it is being used to store their personal data, in an attempt to reclaim
free space. After all, one can very much see 'writable' as an
*invitation* to write or erase the data from said partition in order to
reclaim space.

On the other hand, when using 'persistence', we expect that
inexperienced users may at least try to perform a search for a term they
might be unfamiliar with and in the process understand that this
'persistence' partition is the one that contains their valuable personal
data, and should not be erased.

And that alone is a strong argument against introducing 'writable' as
the new label, even without considering how helpful it would be for
users interested in persistence to try to *BRIDGE* the gap between
distributions, by trying to harmonize the labels that persistent
partitions can be created under instead of *CONFUSING* Linux users
further by introducing a completely new label that nobody seems to have
been asking for.

Also, If Ubuntu 20.04 goes with introducing 'writable', I don't feel
like I should have to point out how users *ARE* going to be utterly
confused when they search on the internet for guides on they should
label their partition to enable persistence, as they are going to find
all sorts of seemingly contradictory information there ("You should
label your partition 'home-rw'", "No, you should label it 'casper-rw'",
"No, you should label it 'persistence'", "No, you should label it
'writable'").

So, can we PLEASE stop this UTTER MADNESS, and at least have more than
one person review the proposed introduction of 'writable' as the new
allowed label for persistent partition, and review what we feel are very
valid concerns.

By opening this bug, we therefore URGE Ubuntu to either *FIX* the
current proposal, by introducing 'persistence' instead of 'writable' as
the proposed new label for persistent partitions, or *DROP* the
introduction of a new alternate label altogether.

And we would also greatly appreciate if someone else other than the
person who has been pushing to introduce this change, was to review and
weight in on the current proposal, as, judging from #1863672, we it does
seem to us like the original maintainer behind that proposal has been
unwilling to engage in any further discussion on the topic (which is
what actually led us to open this new bug report).

Thank you,

/Pete

** Affects: casper (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to casper in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1872065

Title:
  'writable' should not be introduced as a new label for persistence
  partition in Ubuntu 20.04

Status in casper package in Ubuntu:
  New

Bug description:
  This is a follow up on
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/casper/+bug/1863672 since a
  handful of Ubuntu users and software developers do have a valid
  concern that a change, that could have very negative consequences, is
  being introduced in 20.04 with little or not oversight, and that, so
  far, our efforts to have this reviewed have been all but fruitless.

  The root of the matter is that, as of the current 20.04 daily builds,
  the casper package plans to introduce a *new* 'writable' label,
  alongside existing 'casper-rw' label, as a means to detect persistent
  partitions.

  Our concern is that the choice for the new label appears to seemingly
  have been decided by a single person, outside of any consultation with
  other Ubuntu maintainers, and is based on a very flimsy foundation.

  For one thing, many of us think that there is little need to introduce
  a new alternate label for persistent partition, where the label it is
  meant to replace ('casper-rw') was more than good enough for its
  purpose.

  As per #1863672, the maintainer who introduced the label justified
  their choice by indicating that they thought 'casper-rw' was too
  obtuse and that 'writable' would be clearer, but we actually think
  this will be shifting the problem in the completely opposite
  direction, with 'writable' being way to generic to provide anything of
  value to end users to indicate why the partition is labelled that way
  (at least, 'casper-rw' indicates that this has something to do with
  'casper', which is a searchable term that least to an explanation
  about persistence, whereas 'writable' will never accomplish the same
  thing).

  Also, if a new "more generic" label for persistent partition is to be
  introduced, we would STRONGLY advise Ubuntu to use this as an
  opportunity to bridge the gap with regards to what other
  distributions, such as Debian, use as labels for persistent
  partitions, and therefore instead go for the current *GENERIC* label
  that Debian Live settled on, which is 'persistence' (as referenced in
  https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/538665/314167 and other location).

  Much better than 'writable', 'persistence', while being more generic
  and less obtuse than 'casper-rw', would certainly provide an
  indication to Ubuntu end users as to the nature of the partition they
  are dealing with, even if they have no clue about persistence.

  Otherwise, we are confident that there are going to be unfamiliar
  Ubuntu users, who are exploring a drive in a partition manager and see
  only 'writable' as an indication for what a partition is being used
  for, choosing to delete that partition on account that they have no
  idea that it is being used to store their personal data, in an attempt
  to reclaim free space. After all, one can very much see 'writable' as
  an *invitation* to write or erase the data from said partition in
  order to reclaim space.

  On the other hand, when using 'persistence', we expect that
  inexperienced users may at least try to perform a search for a term
  they might be unfamiliar with and in the process understand that this
  'persistence' partition is the one that contains their valuable
  personal data, and should not be erased.

  And that alone is a strong argument against introducing 'writable' as
  the new label, even without considering how helpful it would be for
  users interested in persistence to try to *BRIDGE* the gap between
  distributions, by trying to harmonize the labels that persistent
  partitions can be created under instead of *CONFUSING* Linux users
  further by introducing a completely new label that nobody seems to
  have been asking for.

  Also, If Ubuntu 20.04 goes with introducing 'writable', I don't feel
  like I should have to point out how users *ARE* going to be utterly
  confused when they search on the internet for guides on they should
  label their partition to enable persistence, as they are going to find
  all sorts of seemingly contradictory information there ("You should
  label your partition 'home-rw'", "No, you should label it 'casper-
  rw'", "No, you should label it 'persistence'", "No, you should label
  it 'writable'").

  So, can we PLEASE stop this UTTER MADNESS, and at least have more than
  one person review the proposed introduction of 'writable' as the new
  allowed label for persistent partition, and review what we feel are
  very valid concerns.

  By opening this bug, we therefore URGE Ubuntu to either *FIX* the
  current proposal, by introducing 'persistence' instead of 'writable'
  as the proposed new label for persistent partitions, or *DROP* the
  introduction of a new alternate label altogether.

  And we would also greatly appreciate if someone else other than the
  person who has been pushing to introduce this change, was to review
  and weight in on the current proposal, as, judging from #1863672, we
  it does seem to us like the original maintainer behind that proposal
  has been unwilling to engage in any further discussion on the topic
  (which is what actually led us to open this new bug report).

  Thank you,

  /Pete

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/casper/+bug/1872065/+subscriptions