On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, I received a few mails from Christopher Rogers who played with these > filesystems and 2.6.29. According to his statements, he could get aufs2 to > compile, but it only actually worked when he omitted the unionfs patch. > Maintaining this patch mess has been a PITA, so I say we have a choice here: > Choose one and drop the rest. I think aufs should not be considered, but > only unionfs or aufs2. I don't use these, but the people who do should give > some input on which one to choose.
What one is most likely to land in the kernel? I assume one of these has to be on track to actually get in, and we should go with that and be done with this mess. Why is it that everyone seems to use union filesystems, and yet none of them have matured enough to get in the tree? -Dan
