On 02/26/2013 11:37 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Dienstag, 26. Februar 2013 schrieb Tsutomu Itoh: >>>> Therefore I want you to revert >>>> commit:2a2d8e1962e8b6cda7b0a7584f6d2fb95d442cb6. >>>> >>>> btrfs-progs: require mkfs -f force option to overwrite filesystem >>>> or partition table >>>> >>>> How do you think about it? >>> >>> What if you submit a patch to look at an environment variable, >>> BTRFS_CLOBBERS_ALL=1 which causes it to not require -f to overwrite? >>> Then you can just set it once at the top of your test environment, >>> and not change every instance? >> >> Yes. But, >> >> (Most of my test scripts fails without -f. So I'll always type >> "mkfs.btrfs -f") is one example. >> >> Almost everyone types "mkfs.btrfs -f" (or BTRFS_CLOBBERS_ALL=1 :) >> unconditionally, I think. >> So, I think -f option is almost meaningless. > > No. > > I don´t. me too > > And I teach not to in my trainings as well. > > Everyone who uses rm -rf by default even just for deleting a single file does > it as long as he or she deleted his / her home directory or something. Unfortunately the "rm -rf" is a different case. Removing a directory is a common case. We should not be forced to use the -f for common case. A '-f' flag should be used only in "uncommon" case (like *re*format a disk or a test-suite)... However I think that '-f' is good for mkfs.btrfs. > > Ciao, -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5 -- 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
