[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:0.060 / U:12.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site