From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from brockman.in8.de ([85.214.220.56]:53029 "EHLO mail.in8.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933010Ab2KAPs1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Nov 2012 11:48:27 -0400 Message-ID: <509299C9.7050509@jan-o-sch.net> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:48:25 +0100 From: Jan Schmidt MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Mason CC: Chris Mason , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , "ablock84@googlemail.com" , "sensille@gmx.net" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Btrfs-progs: urgent fixes for btrfs send References: <1351782086-23435-1-git-send-email-list.btrfs@jan-o-sch.net> <20121101150710.GA21281@shiny> In-Reply-To: <20121101150710.GA21281@shiny> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, November 01, 2012 at 16:07 (+0100), Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:01:24AM -0600, Jan Schmidt wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> We made a bad mistake with "btrfs send" command line arguments and we'd >> better fix it before it's being widely used (read: *now*). > > Ok, I do agree that -i was confusing. I didn't end up using it in my > backup scripts here. Good we agree here :-) > How about: > > Make -p and -i mean the same thing. Add -r for what -i should have > done. > > This has the advantage of not breaking the people that did get working > btrfs send setups ;) I'd carefully argue that we're still in the position to break things, because the 3.7 kernel isn't released and you cannot use "btrfs send" without it. The number of users should be really small. I prefer having a clean and painful cut over suffering from bad decisions forever. That may not be the most popular opinion in the world. In the end, I could live with -p and -i doing the same thing. -Jan