On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:16 PM, zooko <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 10, 2009, at 16:11 PM, Andrej Falout wrote: > >>> blackmatch -- Rob Kinninmont's FUSE implementation >> >> Might be worth noting that on my machine blackmatch stopped working >> somewhere between r3465 and r3558 (FUSE error; cannot mount) > > Yes -- should be noted! Someone should open a ticket reporting this > fact. >
I'd be interested to know how the fuse tests fare in exposing this problem. AFAIK, no one has used them recently, and they haven't been run against blackmatch. Here, I just added a ticket to address this: http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/621 [snip...] >>> contrib/fuse -- three different FUSE implementations by three >>> different authors >> >> Of which one is above mentioned blackmatch. > > Whoops -- then what are all those things in the "mac/" subdirectory > with "fuse" in their name? Is blackmatch copied into two locations > in the current source tree? > I would like to see a single fuse implementation become "blessed" as official. Why? So that most users test the same one, and so that it receives automated test scrutiny. Does anyone else like this idea? Here is my impression of the differences between implementations: fuse_a: Strives to be "thin". Uses a python fuse binding of dubious quality. At one point had automated tests. fuse_b: Uses a freshly written python wrapper using ctypes against libfuse. (Correct?) At one point had (the same) automated tests. blackmatch: Strives to be "smart" (versus thin) with caching, request batching, etc... in order to optimize user experience. No automated tests. (Correct?) None of them are actively maintained. (Corrections?) Nathan _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
