On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:31:34PM +0200, Wilhelm Meier wrote: > Am Samstag, 15. April 2006 03:24 schrieb Josef Sipek: > > ... > > Oh, and I forgot to say: we don't support union of unions, simply > > because one cannot be certain which level a whiteout belongs to. > > > > Sometimes ago I suggested to use a sort of layer-id to seperate the whiteouts > of of one and the other unionfs, if they are used as union of unions. With > the layer-id one could use .wh.<layer-id> as prefix for each union.
I was going to mention the entire thread about it, but I couldn't find it. > What about this? Will this be included in the future? Not in the foreseeable future. Right now, we are concentrating on getting unionfs clean, and ready for kernel inclusion. Jeff. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
