On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 08:00:36AM -0600, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:41:56PM +0200, Alexander Block wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Arne Jansen <sensille@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 04.07.2012 15:39, Alexander Block wrote: > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> This is the user space side of btrfs send/receive. > > >> > > >> You can apply them manually or use my git repo: > > >> > > >> git://github.com/ablock84/btrfs-progs.git (branch send) > > >> > > >> The branch is based on Hugo's integration-20120605 branch. I had to add a temporary > > >> commit to fix a bug introduced in one of the strncpy/overflow patches that got into > > >> btrfs-progs. This fix is not part of the btrfs send/receive patchset, but you'll > > >> probably need it if you want to base on the integration branch. I hope this is not > > >> required in the future when a new integration branch comes out. > > >> > > >> Example usage: > > >> > > >> Multiple snapshots at once: > > >> btrfs send /mnt/snap[123] > snap123.btrfs > > > > > > a) Do we really want a single token command here, not > > > btrfs filesystem send or subvol send? > > In my opinion the single token is easier to type and remember. But if > > enough speaks for normal subcommands this can be changed (but by > > someone else as I'm running out of time). > > Since everything else is two commands, yes, I think we need it for > consistency. (And, since it's a publically-visible interface, for > acceptance of the patches -- we don't want to be changing the way the > commands work after the fact). I've been sending and receiving while getting this code integrated. These are really first class operations, and I'd prefer they not be sub-commands. I'm afraid there isn't a lot of logic here, just what feels good to type. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
