On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:02 AM, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why create a new term to define something that has already been defined? >> > That makes sense. I'm ok with FSYNC. > Anton, I don't understand why we should rename LOG_ONLY to SYNC. We > started this discussion with bad naming of DEFAULT, but this has nothing to > do with LOG_ONLY (even though it may be scientific - but SYNC sounds > scientific as well). > I agree with Ivan, we should not go wild with renaming. However, I would like to find out what is the meaning behind the LOG_ONLY name. Can someone explain? D.
