On 2016-02-04 02:33, Qu Wenruo wrote: > The idea itself makes a lot of sense. > But I have at least two things to worry about: > > 1) Old scripts backward compatibility > Especially xfstests. Maintainer will hate it a lot. > As we have changed it several times and broken existing test cases. > > Although personally I like to let all the backward compatibility > things go hell, but that's definitely not how things work. :(
we could change the name of the btrfs prog (like bfs or bctl ?). If the command is called with the old name (btrfs) the old behavior is maintained; with the new name the new output is show if the specific sub command was updated; instead if the specific sub-command is not updated, the old output is show. We could allow a window of 1-year of transition where the new command will be in the alpha state where there is no any guarantee to be backward compatible, hoping that this time would be sufficient to reshape the output of all commands. For the old command no update or enhancement should be allowed (with the exception of bugfix of course). BR G.Baroncelli -- 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
