Adrian von Bidder wrote: > The patch changes the code in a few quite small places (to optionally > replace mkdir / rm -rf by btrfs calls if btrfs option is set), and if the > "btrfs" option is not switched on, it's a noop. The default behaviour is > not changed.
I read the code and agree that this is the case. No tests though but that's really a dirvish problem. I don't know much about btrfs so please excuse me if this is a stupid question, but is btrfs mature enough to want to trust it to hold your backups? Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
