Hello, On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 08:46:31AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:01:55PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:53:27PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:10:24PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ > > > > +/* Hurd unionmount > > > > + The core of unionmount functionality. > > > > > > Again the purpose of the file isn't really to implement unionmount, > > > but to implement the --mount option. > > > > The idea is that the ``--mount'' option is just an intermediate step > > towards a ``stand-alone'' unionmount implementation. That's why I call > > this file in a more general way than just ``mount''. > > What the final implementation of unionmount will look like is still > under discussion, e.g. whether it will be part of settrans, a helper to > settrans, or a standalone translator. Even being an option to unionfs > is not totally out of the question, just very unlikely. > > Even if it's certain that it will not be part of unionfs, we might still > release it as such. So that people can use it and test it, until the > next implementation of unionmount is released. So it should be treated > as an extension to unionfs unless that would require too much extra work > that will later be thrown away.
I have similar thoughts myself, but I think I'll wait for what antrik says... (Though I'm pretty sure he'll opt for something like ``mount'' :-) ) > That said, I'm making a lot of fuzz of a very small issue here. :-) Well, I think it helps making concepts clear :-) > I wanted to review the other patches that has more meat on them. > But I couldn't compile at the time because I messed up my nfs setup. > I'll see if I can get to them later. Oh, great :-) Thank you again :-) I'm looking forward to your reviews. Regards, scolobb
