Am Montag, 13. Dezember 2010, 14:07:09 schrieb Adrian von Bidder: > On Monday 13 December 2010 13.25:06 Paul Slootman wrote: > > On Sun 12 Dec 2010, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > > link-deest option makes sense, IMO, because: > > You're forgetting that there still is a LOT more than linux out there. > > Dirvish is used on all sorts of unixen. They don't have the advantage of > > btrfs. > > Hence I'm wondering whether it's advisable to integrate this into > > dirvish, or to create a new tool based on btrfs. After all it's quite a > > different approach to the problem. > All the rest stays exactly the same, I don't see a big difference. Dirvish > still probides the whole framework to call rsync, do logging, error > handling, expiry, which it does very well. > > (And: Isn't ZFS another FS with cow snapshots? So perhaps I do a variant > of the patch with an option "cow" that could be empty or set to "btrfs"?)
The patch looks fine to me and I that sounds reasonable to me. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Dominik
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
