From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50535 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753133Ab3LPKet (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 05:34:49 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VsVVe-000893-PG for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:46 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:46 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:46 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: btrfs send in 3.12 : can't find snapshot? Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:34:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <87y53lqx88.fsf@maru2.md5i.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michael Welsh Duggan posted on Sun, 15 Dec 2013 22:40:55 -0500 as excerpted: > I built the new btrfs-progs 3.12 recently. I note that the version > information doesn't seem to match this: > > # ./btrfs --version Btrfs v0.20-rc1-358-g194aa4a I see Wang Shilong dealt with the snapshot issue; I'll tackle the version thing. There was a bit of a hiccup in the versioning with the 3.12 tarball, since the version policy had just changed with it, and (I gather) the tarball prep script hadn't been updated appropriately. I believe a patch has already been applied to fix the problem (the patch was certainly posted on this list, but I haven't tracked whether it was actually applied yet) so the same problem won't happen the next time. Meanwhile, btrfs properly reports v3.12 here, but I pull and build from live-git, and the v3.12 tagged commit simply happened to still be current HEAD last I updated. That does explain why the problem with the tarball version wasn't discovered earlier, however, since people (including the devs) building from live-git saw the expected v3.12; it was apparently only the process of preparing and releasing the tarball that was affected by the version bug. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman