Posted Oct 11, 2011 21:48 UTC (Tue) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203)
Parent article: Whither btrfsck?
Sorry, I'm not understanding this argument. The code should be out there. If it isn't believed to be safe the distributions shouldn't package it, but people who want to try and understand it should be able to try to contribute. It couldn't hurt and might help. Not seeing the downside.
And perhaps had the fsck tool been developed in the open alongside the filesystem itself people developing the filesystem might have been motivated to add to the checking tool when adding a filesystem feature. And if they couldn't figure out how to fsck that feature they might have rethought it's implementation to include sufficient information to allow recovery in as many situations as they could plan for. Filesystem checking isn't something to worry about after the filesystem's on disk format is set in stone.
If someone is desperate enough to go pull a git repo, build a tool with UNSTABLE written all over it and run it, that they get to keep the pieces is something they probably understand. It would be a desperation move anyway, things would already be terribly wrong so why not let them give it a go? At least you might get a bug report out of it. What is the answer right now? Too bad, so sad, time to reformat? Even a buggy fsck tool beats that answer.