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.
- Ted
