Actually I've found a 9 years old mail about Tmove: http://comp.os.plan9.narkive.com/xYi8Vg5d/9fans-fuse-bashing#post40
I'm not an advocate of Tmove in any way, but I can't really grasp the cons. I'm sure that its omission was an explicit design choise, but where I can read about the arguments that lead to such decision? Giacomo 2015-02-05 9:21 GMT+01:00 Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it>: > 2015-02-05 5:13 GMT+01:00 <lu...@proxima.alt.za>: >> >> > But why we don't have Tmove for example? >> >> Because its semantics are much, much more complex and the users need >> to be aware of the difference. > > This shouldn't be so hard to obtain. > > I mean we could simply introduce a new command "rename oldpath > newpath" that only works when both path share the same mount point. > This way the mv commands would keep the old "safe" semantic, while the > new command would protect the user to accidentally disclosure his data > to the world via the cloud. > >> Imagine a Tmove that transfers your >> entire disk contents to the cloud: would you like it to be perceived >> as trivial? What happens if you interrupt it? Worse, what happens if >> you can't interrupt it? > > I won't be drammatic: you can always unplug the enthernet! :-D > > Btw, I see the point. > > > Giacomo
