On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:33:42PM -0800, Filipe Brandenburger wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Ian Kumlien <po...@demius.net> wrote: > > This patch includes fsck as a subcommand of btrfs, but if you rename > > the binary to btrfsck (or, preferably, use a symlink) it will act like > > the old btrfs command. > > You can rename files in your git (there's "git mv" for that), only > thing is when you generate the patch with format-patch (or "git show", > "git diff" etc.) pass it the -M option to detect moves and act > appropriately.
git send-email seems to send the full diff, diffing against /dev/null =P This is why i skipped that part. > Regarding your patches, I really like the idea of "btrfs fsck" but I > think I'd prefer to keep the external commands as wrapper scripts > instead of adding busybox-style name detection to btrfs... But then, > that's just my opinion. Well, now both works. > I guess I would have a "btrfsck" that would simply contain: > > #! /bin/sh > exec btrfs fsck "$@" > > Downside is that error reporting (e.g. invalid syntax, etc.) would > show "btrfs fsck" instead of the command the user actually typed... Actually it still does, due to how btrfs handles things... It's a simple enough fix and it will make rescue cd's or dracut images, or just about anything. I understand your point, but i think this is a simpler solution =) > Cheers, > Filipe -- 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
