[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you think about changing the meaning of 'ro'? > all of users and developers
I'm not a user until I can find the time to address the issues I ran into on my last attempt to use unionfs -- but the patch you wrote sounds like a Good Thing to me. I can certainly foresee myself engaging in advanced usage requiring ro_wh, but for the common case your proposed new behaviour for "ro" makes sense.
_______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
