On 06/08/2011 13:58, sf...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: > > Hi Tomas, > > I will gladly join the discussion on LKML. > Actually I did posted several mails to LKML when Miklos, the authour of > overlayfs, asked inclusion and I wrote (to somebody else) > (on 12 June) > Actually overlayfs is union-type-filesystem as aufs, instead of > union-type-mount. > If the development of UnionMount is really stopped, then I'd ask people > to consider merging aufs as well as overlayfs. > > As you know, LKML people chose UnionMount and rejected any > union-type-filesystem a few years ago. But the situation seems to change > while nobody knows, or such decision might not be an agreement in the > beginning.
At the very least you have a clear argument for requesting some subset of features which are required in order to maintain aufs out of tree? This news basically shows that there is long term and persistent demand for an overly type filesystem, even if the exact features required are disputed. As such it becomes an interesting area for development and just like FUSE becomes a way to stop people bugging kernel with requests for obscure filesystems to be included, so too would be an extension of the exported symbols that are required to maintain aufs (et al) out of tree? I think it's hard to imagine you have a small user base... For sure only a few direct users hang out here, but there are a VERY large number of indirect users using live boot CDs, thin terminals, etc, who are users and wouldn't know to come here and say thanks? Very pleased with aufs - many thanks for maintaining it! Ed W ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ uberSVN's rich system and user administration capabilities and model configuration take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. Learn more about uberSVN and get a free download at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev
