Mark, My first goal is to port to newer kernels, b/c people always move up to newer ones (slowly :-). Yes, some kernels are EOL and hence don’t get any more updates, so indeed there’s just cosmetic changes for those. Honestly, I may have to stop supporting really old kernels that no one maintains/uses these days.
After ports, I’m fixing any serious bugs. I don’t expect any major features introduced in the near future. Cheers, Erez. On Dec 1, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Mark Hinds <[email protected]> wrote: > > Erez, > > Diffing the sources, all I find are changes of the date from 2011 to 2013 in > the > copyright notices at the top of the files - at least for my 2.6 and 3.2 > kernels. > I've applied these cosmetic patches to my production kernels - thereby giving > myself the feeling that unionfs is not dead, and that I needn't to worry about > find a replacement. :-) > > I assume that the real work was forward porting the to the newer kernels? > That's of course quite useful and I do intend someday to move to a later > kernel, but according to this link at kernel.org > https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html > linux-3.2 will be around the longest. > > Will unionfs be getting and bug fixes/enhancements in the future? > > Thanks > > Mark > _______________________________________________ > unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ > [email protected] > http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs > _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
