The reasoning stated is that EROFS is more actively developed than SquashFS. Does that mean that SquashFS is feature incomplete, or that it’s more stable?
It probably means that more people are hacking on it and getting their PRs accepted than are working on SquashFS. What constitutes software that is still alive these days is pretty badly skewed toward “if you don’t release four x.y.z releases every day your software is dead” these days.
The reasoning stated is that EROFS is more actively developed than SquashFS. Does that mean that SquashFS is feature incomplete, or that it’s more stable?
It probably means that more people are hacking on it and getting their PRs accepted than are working on SquashFS. What constitutes software that is still alive these days is pretty badly skewed toward “if you don’t release four x.y.z releases every day your software is dead” these days.