From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 16 12:36:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDBC16A41F; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:36:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D31C43D49; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:36:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2GCaKOY085559; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:36:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <44195BBF.9070805@samsco.org> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:36:15 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051230 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daichi GOTO References: <001201c648bd$226b6440$0301a8c0@transactionware.com> <441901D8.8090506@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <441901D8.8090506@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Jan Mikkelsen , ozawa@ongs.co.jp, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "'Mars G. Miro'" Subject: Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:36:26 -0000 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