On 11-10-06 07:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
That's how software goes sometimes, and I'll take the criticism because
it hasn't gone as well as it should have. But, I can't stress enough how
much I appreciate everyone's contributions and interest in btrfs.
With all due respect Chris, your actions and your words seem to
contradict each other. It would appear that people are wanting to help
contribute, but without showing them the code, you're preventing any
contributions from happening. As you know, contributing is more than
just code, just as important is proper testing, especially with a fsck tool.
I also don't think you are giving people enough credit. e2fsck will
cause corruption pretty much everytime its run on a mounted file system,
but a nice big nasty warning message seems to handle that quite well and
anyone who ignores it, well thats their own fault, not the developers:
e2fsck 1.41.14 (22-Dec-2010)
/dev/sdb1 is mounted.
WARNING!!! The filesystem is mounted. If you continue you ***WILL***
cause ***SEVERE*** filesystem damage.
Do you really want to continue (y/n)? cancelled!
You could easily place the same warning in btrfs fsck even for normal
use and recommend/require that it be run on a loopback image rather than
the actual data itself or something. Heck, even have it run in "make no
changes" mode by default and require recompiling to enable "fix my
filesystem" mode.
In fact, when its first released that would probably be a good idea to
do this anyways. The reality is, it doesn't matter how long you work on
the fsck tool, its pretty much guaranteed to be a few bugs that corrupt
some peoples data even more than it was before, thats the price you pay
for being on the bleeding edge.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely appreciate all your work, I just wish I
could appreciate it even more with a fsck tool. ;)
-- Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
