Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:15:23 +0900
From:      Daichi GOTO <daichi@freebsd.org>
To:        "Mars G. Miro" <marsgmiro@gmail.com>,  freebsd-current@freebsd.org,  freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, ozawa@ongs.co.jp
Cc:        daichi@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)
Message-ID:  <4418D84B.6090005@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <28edec3c0603151829r7ff125f8m3dfb8c194d0731b7@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <28edec3c0603151829r7ff125f8m3dfb8c194d0731b7@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mars G. Miro wrote:
> Daichi-san,
> 
>> I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
>>
> 
> We've been using an in-house LiveCD toolkit that uses unionfs  (where
> cd9660 is the lower layer) and all I can say is that these patches are
> very important, at least on => 6.X, otherwise things would just not
> work. I believe the FreeSBIE folks also went thru the same experience
> as they also do this (cd9960 lower, unionfs upper).
> 
> I have tried your p8-patchset diffs for about 2 weeks now and It Works
> (TM). Will try your p9 diffs soon ;-)

Good.

> Will these diffs remain to be diffs or do people think that these will
> be integrated into the sources sometime?

It is depending on src committer's intentions. I am a ports committer.
I want to merge it into -current and I think it is getting ripe for
integrating into -current. The patchset-9 already has enough quality
for merge.

All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)

-- 
   Daichi GOTO, http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4418D84B.6090005>