Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:35:38 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jehamby@lightside.com, jsigmon@www.hsc.wvu.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.2.x release question Message-ID: <199610170235.TAA04604@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <1295.845515554@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Oct 16, 96 06:25:54 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I feel they had a perfectly valid point. > > > > Let them use union mounts... > > I see. The "let them eat cake" argument, eh? Well, Marie, we > don't have unionfs and the peasants don't have cake. :-) > > Jordan > > P.S. To anyone who nonetheless feels compelled to say "We *do* have > unionfs! We do! I saw it in /sys/miscfs/union just the other day!" > let me just clarify that we haven't had anything resembling a working > unionfs for close to 2 years now, and those who were holding their > breath for it died of asphyxiation long ago. I have unionfs. Commit my changes, and you can have unionfs too. Actually I wasn't thinking of the Marie Antionette "let them eat cake" argument, I was thinking of your "if they want it, let them write code and submit it for core team approval" argument. If people really wanted persistance as badly as you claim they do, they would be willing to write code (according to that argument, anyway). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610170235.TAA04604>