On 2019-01-21 11:54 p.m., Chris Murphy wrote:
#
> 
> I expect the last command to fail because 1.ro1 is not the parent of
> 2.ro2. The command completes, and 2.ro2 is on the destination, and at
> least in this simple example it contains the expected files. However
> 'btrfs show' indicates that the "parent UUID" of 2.ro2 is the "UUID"
> of 1.ro1, which is definitely wrong. So it's a legit bug, not just a
> cosmetic problem due to lack of error checking.
>


This is, as far as I understand, exactly how it's *supposed* to work, at
least, as documented.  The only relationship needed between a "parent"
snapshot, and the snapshot you're sending, is that the parent already
exists on the destination.  Your example would be completely
counter-productive, since there is no data shared between the two, but
perfectly legitimate.  1.ro1 is the parent of 2.ro2 because *you
explicitly told it to*.