On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:09:45PM +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 01:52:52PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:14:03PM -0500, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > > > > export BTRFS_SUBVOLUME_DELETE_CONFIRM=1 > > > > > > > > Ideas? > > > > > > Never rely on aliasing or environment variables for defaults, and never > > > change default behavior if your releases are old enough that someone > > > has built scripts on top of them. ;) > > > > Exactly. > > > > > If I had to pick the least evil, I'd go for interactive prompting by > > > default (do nothing if the interaction fails, e.g. no TTY) and add a > > > '-f'/'--force' flag to bypass the prompt. > > > > This sounds acceptable. > > > > > This is consistent with the > > > way lvm2 and mdadm work when presented with data-losing or otherwise > > > questionable commands and parameters. It will break scripts, but btrfs > > > users should still be expecting that for a while as undesirable default > > > behaviors are identified. > > > > How is this going to break scripts? > > Any script which relies on being able to delete subvolumes in > unattended operation will now require modification to use -f. Even with the tty/interactive shell detection in place? Maybe I understood the reference to lvm/mdadm tools wrong. My idea is that the scripts would work as now, no prompts there. -- 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
