From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jun 19 08:28:53 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B77B37B401
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za
	[196.31.7.201])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9865543F75
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@starjuice.net)
Received: from sheldonh by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local (Exim 4.20)
	id 19T1LB-0004Bi-Dp; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:28:45 +0200
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:28:45 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Message-ID: <20030619152845.GP13111@starjuice.net>
Mail-Followup-To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>,
	arch@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <2687.1056023029@critter.freebsd.dk>
	<20030619121550.H51411@hub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030619121550.H51411@hub.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Sender: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>
cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/nullfs null.h null_subr.c null_vnops.c
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:53 -0000

On (2003/06/19 12:16), The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> > My comments about nullfs and unionfs, shoul not be construed as I want
> > to kill those features, it was more meant as "they will not be my
> > primary priorities and if they break temporarily, so be it."
> 
> Ah, well, 'break temporarily' doesn't worry me too much ... I just got the
> impression of "rip out completely" from your one note, which had me
> concerned :(

That's not a completely unrealistic impression to walk away with.  The
last time unionfs and nullfs were broken, it was also temporarily.  It's
all relative. :-)

Ciao,
Sheldon.