lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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.

-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-11 18:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans