On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 05:12:11PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 8 September 2017 at 16:38, Hugo Mills <h...@carfax.org.uk> wrote: > [..] > >> sometimes I'm really thinking about start rewrite btrfs-progs to make > >> btrfs basic tools syntax as similar as it is only possible to ZFS zfs, > >> zpool and zdb commands on using which in +90% cases you can guess how > >> necessary syntax must look like without looking on man pages. > >> > >> Any volunteers want to join to help implement something like this? > >> Maybe someone already started doing this? > > > > The main complaint that can be directed at the btrfs command is > > that its output is rarely machine-processable. It would therefore make > > sense to have a "--table" or "--structured" mode for output, which > > would be more trivially parsable by shell tools. > > Output of the btrfs command it is coooooompletely different pair of shoes. > On making btrfs tools similar to ZFS analogues *obviously* output > should be as same similar. > By this would possible to solve complains about unreadable output in one go. > > For example zfs command parseable output is possible to generate by > add -p switch in those subcommands where it is needed (no --tables or > --structures .. just one switch).
--tables _is_ one switch. > Instead reinventing the wheel just please try to look first how it is What in what I said was reinventing a wheel? Literally the *only* thing I was suggesting was adding some option to make the btrfs tool output more machine-parsable. Call the option whatever you like. However, note that there are probably very few single-letter options which are not used in at least one of the btrfs tool subcommands. Hugo. -- Hugo Mills | How do you become King? You stand in the marketplace hugo@... carfax.org.uk | and announce you're going to tax everyone. If you http://carfax.org.uk/ | get out alive, you're King. PGP: E2AB1DE4 | Harry Harrison
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
