On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Mar 2013, Gregory Farnum wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:sage@xxxxxxxxxxx)> wrote: >> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Gregory Farnum wrote: >> > > I suspect users are going to easily get in trouble without a more >> > > rigid separation between multi-linked and single-linked buckets. It's >> > > probably best if anybody who's gone to the trouble of setting up a DAG >> > > can't wipe it out without being very explicit ? so for instance "move" >> > > should only work against a bucket with a single parent. >> > > >> > >> > >> > Good idea; I'll add that. >> > >> > > Rather than >> > > defaulting to all ancestors, removals should (for multiply-linked >> > > buckets) require users to either specify a set of ancestors or to pass >> > > in a "--all" flag. >> > >> > 'rm' only works on an empty bucket, so I'm not sure there is much danger >> > is removing all links (and the bucket) in that case? >> >> Well, if "unlink" takes it out of the tree without requiring it to be empty then that would be one case. > > Oh, right. That's true. I'm still not a fan of an --all flag, though. > In almost all cases, users will have maps with only 1 link, so the > required flag will be confusing. It also breaks the current behavior > (which already removes all links). I was thinking that if there was only one link it would remove that one. I didn't realize it currently removed all links — although I dimly remember a bug about just randomly taking the first one it finds. Is that new-ish behavior? >> I guess mostly I'm just not sure what the use case is for keeping around >> unlinked buckets so I'd rather keep the set of CLI options simpler. It's >> not that hard to link a bucket into the tree where you want it and then >> remove the other links. > > Yeah, that isn't often useful in and of itself... but it is possible (and > often required) to create independent trees, and if you can link them, you > have to be able to unlink them. Currently we just have "rm", right? And that removes the link and the bucket? Can't we just keep "rm" and for multiply-linked buckets require a specification of which ancestor to remove the link from (or a --all flag), and then delete the bucket when the final link is removed? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
