[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g
    Johannes Schindelin wrote:
    > Two reasons against renaming:
    > - we call it fsck-objects for a reason. We are working on a file system,
    > which just so happens to be implemented in user space, not kernel space.
    > If lost+found has to find a new name, so does fsck-objects.

    I'm sorry, but that is bull. The problem here isn't the conventional
    naming, it's that you're implementing your filesystem on top of another
    filesystem, and you're running into a layering conflict.

    > - lost+found has a special meaning, granted. So, a backup would not be
    > made of it. So what? I *don't* want it backup'ed. I want to repair what
    > was wrong with it. When I repaired it, the result is stored somewhere
    > else. To backup lost+found would make as much sense as to backup /tmp.

    The default should ALWAYS be no data loss.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-11-11 18:49    [W:0.020 / U:37.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site