On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:48:25AM -0600, Jan Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, November 01, 2012 at 16:07 (+0100), Chris Mason wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:01:24AM -0600, Jan Schmidt wrote: > >> Hi everybody, > >> > >> We made a bad mistake with "btrfs send" command line arguments and we'd > >> better fix it before it's being widely used (read: *now*). > > > > Ok, I do agree that -i was confusing. I didn't end up using it in my > > backup scripts here. > > Good we agree here :-) > > > How about: > > > > Make -p and -i mean the same thing. Add -r for what -i should have > > done. > > > > This has the advantage of not breaking the people that did get working > > btrfs send setups ;) > > I'd carefully argue that we're still in the position to break things, because > the 3.7 kernel isn't released and you cannot use "btrfs send" without it. The > number of users should be really small. > > I prefer having a clean and painful cut over suffering from bad decisions > forever. That may not be the most popular opinion in the world. In the end, I > could live with -p and -i doing the same thing. But we have a working -p, I'm not sure why we'd rename it to -i? I'm even fine with just flat out removing -i. This is mostly because --parent makes a lot of sense to me, but I'm more than open to other ideas. -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
