From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43910 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752002AbaAMRrq (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:47:46 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W2lc1-0000t2-6W for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:47:45 +0100 Received: from cpc21-stap10-2-0-cust974.12-2.cable.virginm.net ([86.0.163.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:47:45 +0100 Received: from m_btrfs by cpc21-stap10-2-0-cust974.12-2.cable.virginm.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:47:45 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Martin Subject: btrfs versions compatibility and updates Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:47:31 +0000 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: There's the very good idea of releasing the btrfs userspace tools with a version number that matches the kernel version... Good to see a good jump for what is considered 'stable'. What is the policy for maintaining compatibility with whatever range of kernel versions? And what is the state of play now for the "Chris Mason" or whatever latest 'stable' branch of btrfs on git? In other words: Should we always update the btrfs userspace tools to the latest even though we may be running one or two kernels behind that?... Thanks, Martin