Hello, On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 04:16:46AM +0100, Ivan Malone wrote: > Those of you working on unionmount? Do you think unionmount could be > made to work this way, or does it already? Well, unionmount is not yet production ready, since it still requires some work to bring it to a state sufficiently nice to be make public. So, if you won't ask of it more than it can do, it'll do it for you in the nearest future :-) (Well, I hope so very much)
OTOH, I'm not sure whether by saying ``unionmount'' you do refer to ``project unionmount''. Reading through your post, it occurred to me that some of the tasks might not require the unionmount I'm working at now, but the already working unionfs, which should not be deemed to oblivion :-) Another detail which you will most likely need to consider is speed: it might be my own hallucination, but things do work a (notable) bit slower when I'm merging several directories with unionfs. And here we come back to the well-known problem: drivers for better hardware (and, IIRC, Arne mentions this problem in another post) Regards, scolobb
