Hi, On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > > unionmount is expected to merge the filesystem on which it sits > > > with the filesystem exposed by the translator it is asked to start > > > in unionmount mode (further referred to as ``the Translator''). > > > > Nah, I think there are various clearer ways to name it: e.g. "target > > translator", or perhaps "inferior" (like in a debugger), or > > "mountee"... :-) > > My vote is on ``mountee'', as you might of noticed in my other mail. I'm actually no longer convinced it is such a good idea: although I came up with the term myself, I found myself pausing at it the first couple of times I read it in your mails -- seems it isn't quite as intuitive as I initially believed... But I guess we all got used to the term by now, so we can just as well stick with it :-) > > I don't think we should call it "shadow node": although there are > > some similarities, it seems to me that it's not quite the same as > > the shadow nodes in nsmux -- it would be confusing. > > > > For now, I suggest calling it "internal node" or "hidden node". We > > can still change the name later when the exact role becomes clearer. > > How about ``wedge node''? I like the image it gives of prying apart > the mountee from the mount point. :-) Yeah, could work :-) > I'll stick to ``shadow node'' until a decision is made. Please don't. We may not know exactly what it is yet, but we know for sure that it's *not* the same as the shadow nodes in nsmux. *Any* of the suggested terms will cause less confusion, even if we use another one later on. -antrik-
