Hi, On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:51:21AM +0200, unlimitedscol...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:29:54PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 06:37:54AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > > > wrote:
> > > > Well, I can't really give a final ACK without seeing the whole > > > > patch in its final form... [...] > > Perhaps you didn't expect the previous version to be final either -- > > if this is the case, please pretend I never said anything about this > > ;-) > > Well, I didn't expect the previous version to be final :-) But that's > not a problem :-) I wonder, whether this version is final, though?.. Err... but you haven't sent the current version either :-) > Namely, the sentence now looks like this: ``This node is based on the > netnode of the root node (it is essentially a clone of the root node), > because in this way unionfs appears as the underlying translator to > the mountee.'' "Because" is not the right word here; and "in this way" is also not correct English I think... Just say "so that" or so. In either case, the sentence is clear enough now :-) > I think we should adopt some conventions in order to remove the > ambiguity of the word ``underlying''. I'd suggest using ``underlying > translator'' to specify the order of translators in a stack, > ``underlying filesystem'' for the real underlying filesystem, and > ``unioned directory'' for one of the components of the union managed > by unionfs. Sounds reasonable :-) > I'm strongly inclined to consider the term ``underlying filesystem'' > used for a unioned directory to be unwieldy chosen: firstly, unionfs > is not operating on filesystems, and secondly, the directories it > operates on are not underlying to it. Indeed. -antrik-
