On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:37 AM, <olafbuddenha...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 01:07:27AM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote:
>> > This is a non-trivial problem. Other unionfs implementations
>> > probably spent considerable time figuring out how to do it best. I
>> > entreated Gianluca to check what over implementations do, instead of
>> > trying to reinvent the wheel -- but he wouldn't listen :-(
>>
>> Olaf. When would have this happened?
>
> I can't say exactly. But I distincly remember that you discussed the
> semantics of file deletion in unionfs on IRC with some others. Various
> ideas were thrown around, problems pointed out -- it was obvious that
> this is really a complex topic hard to figure out.
Well, of course I don't remember how I implemented it out. IIRC I just
left what I felt was more natural given the code architecture. At
least this is what I generally do not to not to get involved in
meaningless designing problems. :-)
> And it appeared to me that every implementation of unionfs must face the
> very same problems. So I suggested checking how others have solved it --
> surely the popular implementations in Linux etc. have spent a lot of
> thought on that, and the conclusions shouldn't be any different for
> us...
>
> I hope the way I wrote this above wasn't offensive -- I see now that it
> might be :-(
Uh? Me offensive? Hey, it's me! I tend to be boringly noisy, not
offensive, at least I hope so. :-)
G.
--
It was a type of people I did not know, I found them very strange and
they did not inspire confidence at all. Later I learned that I had been
introduced to electronic engineers.
E. W. Dijkstra
