On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:11:44PM +0100, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> 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 =)
FWIW I agree with Filipe, this name detection thing looks ugly to me.
The merge itself is a good idea, but I think we should stick with shell
wrappers for everything else.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
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
