Hi Erez, Many thanks that unionfs lives on. We (AstLinux project) have used unionfs for many years, relieved we don't have to find a replacement.
We are currently using unionfs 2.5.11 on Linux 2.6.35 and it has been rock solid. I'd like to cast my vote for a rock solid unionfs version for long-long-term Linux 3.2.53+ . I have seen some reports like this: http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/unionfs/2012-August/006139.html Thanks again, Lonnie > 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 <zoro98020 at gmail.com> 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
