On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 11:51:06PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 10:46 +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: > > It'll fail *obviously*. I'm not sure how graceful it is. :) > > Okay that doesn't sound like it was very trustworthy... :-/ > > Especially this from the manpage: > You must not specify clone sources unless you guarantee that these > snapshots are exactly in the same state on both sides—both for the > sender and the receiver. > > I mean what should the user ever be able to guarantee... respectively > what's meant with above? > > If the tools or any option combination thereof would allow one to > create corrupted send/received shapthots, then there's not much a user > can do. > If this sentence just means that the user mustn't have manually hacked > some UUIDs or so... well then I guess that's anyway clear and the > sentence is just confusing.
It means that (a) the snapshots should exist, and (b) you shouldn't use the tools to make any of them read-write, make modifications, and make them read-only again. (and (c), as you say, don't modify the UUIDs). Hugo. > > but I guess it's not a priority for the devs > > Since it seems to be a valuable feature with probably little chances to > get it working in the foreseeable future, I've added it as a feature > request to the long term records ;-) > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211521 > > > > Cheers, > Chris. > -- Hugo Mills | hugo@... carfax.org.uk | __(_'> http://carfax.org.uk/ | Squeak! PGP: E2AB1DE4 |
