Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:      David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com>
To:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: proposal to not change time_t
Message-ID:  <199808191519.IAA23782@pau-amma.whistle.com>
In-Reply-To: <199808190737.CAA19503@unix.tfs.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From: Jim Bryant <jbryant@unix.tfs.net>
>Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 02:37:14 -0500 (CDT)

>the fell-swoop approach is not unprecedented under freebsd.  all i am
>thinking of here is the userland code and DATA out there that will
>need a more gradual migration.

As y'all are considering these things, please do not overlook the issue
of archived data (some of which may be in more filesystem-specific
formats than others).

It *may* be useful for restore (for example) to be able to use rather
different notions of the structure of an inode depending on certain
criteria (such as a date or a flag, for example).  I think expecting
folks to restore & re-archive data would be impractical, to put it about
as nicely as I can think of.

It may well be that by means of such an approach, the effects of the
change (with respect to archived data) could be mitigated to "bearable."

david
-- 
David Wolfskill		UNIX System Administrator
dhw@whistle.com		voice: (650) 577-7158	pager: (650) 371-4621

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808191519.IAA23782>