Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:36:15 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Daichi GOTO <daichi@freebsd.org> Cc: ozawa@ongs.co.jp, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "'Mars G. Miro'" <marsgmiro@gmail.com> Subject: Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010) Message-ID: <44195BBF.9070805@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <441901D8.8090506@freebsd.org> References: <001201c648bd$226b6440$0301a8c0@transactionware.com> <441901D8.8090506@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daichi GOTO wrote: > Jan Mikkelsen wrote: > >> Daichi GOTO wrote: >> >>> All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions >>> and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :) >> >> >> OK. How about a merge? >> >> I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE. > > > Me too, but unfortunately it is difficult with some reasons > (detail information http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/). > Of course, our patch gives the conditions for integration of > -current OK. For -stable is BAD. > > We must keep the API compatibility of command/library > for integration of -stable. With some technical/specifical > reasons, our improved unionfs has a little uncompatibility. > > For the last time, integration of -stable will be left > to the judgment of src committers and others. > >> Regards, >> >> Jan Mikkelsen. > > Right now, unionfs is somewhat usable for read-only purposes. As long as your work doesn't alter or break the behaviour of read-only mounts, I think it's very much ready to go into CVS. From there it can get wider testing and review and be considered for 6-stable. Since read-write support in the existing code is pretty much worthless, I don't think that there will be a problem justifying the operational changes that you describe in your documentation. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44195BBF.9070805>