Daichi GOTO wrote:
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Me too, but unfortunately it is difficult with some reasons
(detail information http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/).
Of course, our patch gives the conditions for integration of
-current OK. For -stable is BAD.
We must keep the API compatibility of command/library
for integration of -stable. With some technical/specifical
reasons, our improved unionfs has a little uncompatibility.
For the last time, integration of -stable will be left
to the judgment of src committers and others.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
Right now, unionfs is somewhat usable for read-only purposes. As
long as your work doesn't alter or break the behaviour of read-only
mounts, I think it's very much ready to go into CVS. From there it
can get wider testing and review and be considered for 6-stable.
Since read-write support in the existing code is pretty much worthless,
I don't think that there will be a problem justifying the operational
changes that you describe in your documentation.
Scott
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
