From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:58176 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759661Ab3BZIy0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:54:26 -0500 Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06943EE0BD for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:54:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF2B45DE59 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:54:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CFA45DE56 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:54:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CDF1DB804E for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:54:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from m1001.s.css.fujitsu.com (m1001.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.139]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196F11DB804C for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:54:24 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <512C781D.1090309@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:53:49 +0900 From: Tsutomu Itoh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Chinner CC: Eric Sandeen , chris.mason@fusionio.com, linux-btrfs , Stefan Behrens , David Sterba Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] btrfs-progs: require mkfs -f force option to overwrite filesystem or partition table References: <511D2D2B.8040804@redhat.com> <5124EDAB.5020003@giantdisaster.de> <512BF648.1090602@jp.fujitsu.com> <512BFCD1.3030709@redhat.com> <512C3230.8020305@jp.fujitsu.com> <512C34CC.3070904@redhat.com> <512C3927.2080708@jp.fujitsu.com> <20130226070525.GP5551@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20130226070525.GP5551@dastard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2013/02/26 16:05, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:25:11PM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: >> On 2013/02/26 13:06, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 2/25/13 9:55 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: >>>> EXPERIMENTAL... It's certainly so. >>>> However, I think that we should not add the option that it troubles >>>> a lot of people. >>> >>> Well, I sent it as an RFC. Chris merged it; I'll defer to his judgement. >> >> Agreed. So, I sent revert request to Chris :) > > Where? I want to NACK the revert - this is not a matter to joke > about. I apologize for my childish expression. I'll also defer to Chris's judgement. Thanks, Tsutomu > > You're all smart enough to know how to use shell aliases and script > variables, so this "need to type -f all the time" argument holds > absolutely no weight at all. Further, most of the time you're > working on systems that donMy childish expression is mistaken. 't hold any data you care about and so > the consequences of a mistake are very minor. > > However, users often make mistakes and we have to take that into > account when deciding on the default behaviour of our tools. > Tools that destroy data *must* err on the side of conservative > default behaviour simply because of the fact that destroying the > wrong data can have catastrophic consequences. It's not your data > that is being destroyed, but it is data that you have a > *responsibility to safeguard* as a filesystem developer. > > Think about it this way: how happy would an important customer be if > they decided that *you* were directly responsible for a major data > loss incident because they found it would have been prevented by the > "-f" patch? I don't think that the explanation of "it was > inconvenient to me" would be an acceptable answer..... > > Cheers, > > Dave. >