Re: Unionmount. Basic details

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:35:07PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> Carl Fredrik Hammar <hammy.lite@gmail.com> writes:

> > Well it isn't simpler in the sense that we'd need to maintain two
> > very similar yet different code bases.  Improvements to one would
> > likely get ported to the other.
[...]
> Also, I'm not aware of anybody still doing any changes to unionfs :-)

This doesn't preclude the possibility that while working on unionmount,
you find improvments to the merging code, that can be applied to unionfs
as well... But it should be easy to cherry-picking the changes, if the
fork is properly recorded in revision control -- so I don't see that as
a major problem.

> I still cannot see why having a shadow-node server is better than
> creating the shadow nodes in-process. Note that creating a new server
> will involve creating a new interface, which I'm inclined to consider
> a little bit of overkill...

Creating a new interface is not a problem per se. It's the complexity of
the required interaction that bothers me.

-antrik-