Hi, On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 01:52:50PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:08 PM, <olafbuddenha...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > But now that you mention it, I see that indeed it might be an > > interesting option to let settrans do all the setup, and have the > > translator component only serve as a helper... [...] > Do you mean that ``settrans --unionmount'' should use unionfs to > actually do the union mount? Perhaps. The ideas are all very vague still. > If so, what shall the mountee sit on? Obviously, we need some helper that handles the internal node. > If not so, I fail to see any special advantage of this syntax compared > to ``settrans <node> unionmount <translator>''. The obvious advantage is that it is simpler and more intuitive for the user. Not sure about the technical merits yet... -antrik-
