Re: is back and forth incremental send/receive supported/stable?

[Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>]

On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 11:51:06PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 10:46 +0000, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >    It'll fail *obviously*. I'm not sure how graceful it is. :)
> 
> Okay that doesn't sound like it was very trustworthy... :-/
> 
> Especially this from the manpage:
>        You must not specify clone sources unless you guarantee that these
>        snapshots are exactly in the same state on both sides—both for the
>        sender and the receiver.
> 
> I mean what should the user ever be able to guarantee... respectively
> what's meant with above?
> 
> If the tools or any option combination thereof would allow one to
> create corrupted send/received shapthots, then there's not much a user
> can do.
> If this sentence just means that the user mustn't have manually hacked
> some UUIDs or so... well then I guess that's anyway clear and the
> sentence is just confusing.

   It means that (a) the snapshots should exist, and (b) you shouldn't
use the tools to make any of them read-write, make modifications, and
make them read-only again. (and (c), as you say, don't modify the
UUIDs).

   Hugo.

> > but I guess it's not a priority for the devs
> 
> Since it seems to be a valuable feature with probably little chances to
> get it working in the foreseeable future, I've added it as a feature
> request to the long term records ;-)
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211521
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris.
> 

-- 
Hugo Mills             |
hugo@... carfax.org.uk | __(_'>
http://carfax.org.uk/  | Squeak!
PGP: E2AB1DE4          |