On 14.12.2015 17:38, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 12/14/2015 11:36 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 12.12.2015 02:25, John Snow wrote:
>>> Always report full_backing_filename, even if it's the same as
>>> backing_filename. In the next patch, full_backing_filename may be
>>> omitted if it cannot be generat
On 12.12.2015 02:25, John Snow wrote:
> Always report full_backing_filename, even if it's the same as
> backing_filename. In the next patch, full_backing_filename may be
> omitted if it cannot be generated instead of allowing e.g. drive_query
> to abort if it runs into this scenario.
>
> The prese
On 12/14/2015 11:36 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 12.12.2015 02:25, John Snow wrote:
>> Always report full_backing_filename, even if it's the same as
>> backing_filename. In the next patch, full_backing_filename may be
>> omitted if it cannot be generated instead of allowing e.g. drive_query
>> to ab
Always report full_backing_filename, even if it's the same as
backing_filename. In the next patch, full_backing_filename may be
omitted if it cannot be generated instead of allowing e.g. drive_query
to abort if it runs into this scenario.
The presence or absence of the "full" field becomes useful
