From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44010 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1425264AbeE1PyQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2018 11:54:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 13:29:45 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Howard McLauchlan Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , Omar Sandoval , Filipe Manana Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] btrfs send stream version 2 Message-ID: <20180528112945.GT6649@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <20180528021443.13923-1-linux@hmclauchlan.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180528021443.13923-1-linux@hmclauchlan.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:14:29PM -0400, Howard McLauchlan wrote: > This is v2 of send stream version 2. The goal is to provide proper > versioning/compatibility as new features are implemented. v1 can be found here > [1]. We need to decide the overall approach to the versioning updates. The wiki page has several problems with v1 that I don't see addressed in this patchset. So the question is: 1) fix everything we know about now in send protocol v2 2) incremental fixes (eg. this patchset) and version bumps as the missing features/bugs get fixed I'd vote for 1 because 2 is likely to cause usability problems with kernel and clients with different version support. But eg. rsync has protocol version 30 and maybe more so handful of versions does not need to be an issue in the end. We should be ready with version updates for btrfs but at this moment I haven't thought about all the usability issues for 2).