Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

From: Scott Long <scottl_at_samsco.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:36:15 -0700
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
Received on Thu Mar 16 2006 - 11:36:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:53 UTC