Am 03.12.24 um 16:51 schrieb Theodore Ts'o:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 04:23:39PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:B) Revert e2fsprogs's change to address bug 1086603 and not worry about leaving an exposed, sharp edge to careless users.Personally I would prefer B, all the other options don't sound really appealing.The problem with (B) is that it really does potentially mess up users, and I don't want to assume users will pay attention to a warning message. What are the use cases for fsarchiver where you would expect users to try to archive and restore revision 0 file systems? I wouldn't expect that those are particularly common.
Just to clarify: The failing test uses -r 1, not 0:fs_ext2.c#383,extfs_mkfs(): command [mke2fs -q -F -b 1024 -L 'Test' -U 31ec6c69-80a1-4ed6-9642-f2b78f798bff -I 256 -r 1 -O has_journal,ext_attr,resize_inode,dir_index,^sparse_super2,^fast_commit,orphan_file,filetype,extent,^journal_dev,flex_bg,^meta_bg,^mmp,64bit,^inline_data,^ea_inode,^large_dir,large_file,huge_file,sparse_super,^uninit_bg,dir_nlink,extra_isize,^bigalloc,metadata_csum,^project /dev/loop0] failed with return status=1
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
