Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:10:46 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@FreeBSD.org>, "'current@FreeBSD.org'" <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Change mtree nsec handling? Message-ID: <30973.1233310246@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:43:35 PST." <4982CBC7.5050102@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <4982CBC7.5050102@FreeBSD.org>, Maxim Sobolev writes: >Tim Kientzle wrote: >> Any concerns about this? > >Given the age of mtree(8) I guess there are lot of existing mtree specs >out there who rely on this behavior. Therefore, IMHO the right thing to >do would be either note this in the documentation and let it be, or mark >"time" keyword as depreciated and add some new keyword for example >"timestamp". The new keyword will be generated by default by mtree(8) >instead of "time" and will do the right thing. Then, in few years from >now "time" could be deorbited. This is way overkill. We are not in the business of rococo decoration. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?30973.1233310246>