Subject: Re: union whiteouts persistence intentional?
To: Chapman Flack <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: theo borm <email@example.com>
Date: 06/07/2006 09:57:35
Chapman Flack wrote:
> theo borm wrote:
>> I hadn't thought of it that way. And I'm not quite sure if it works
>> that way. In fstab you can give -o union to mounts, but this doesn't
> I think -o union is something different entirely. :/
AH, you are right
>> Most usefull behaviour to me would be something like a mount option
>> "-o non-persistent-whiteouts", but I guess this would require one to
> You know, I wonder how many people on this project actually actively
> use the wiki over at onetbsd.org? One of the things that really seems
you mean http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-advocacy/2006/04/08/0001.html ?
> to drag it back is the way good ideas go whizzing by in the mailing
> lists, and are never heard from again. I wouldn't be surprised if the
> list archives contain greatly improved layerfs five times over, if there
> were a way to assemble 14 years of mail fragments into a design.
I much prefer mailing lists for this kind of discussion; the're much more
on-topic, and lend themselve much better to having an exchange of ideas
than a wiki where the ideas can get edited away by the first by-passer
anyone else sees them.
I've now aggregated several years worth of tech-kern traffic, and what I
really would like is to be able to download (monthly/yearly?) digests
of all the older traffic (mbox files) so I can also grep my way around
them. I could of course wget all messages from the website and reconstruct
mboxes, but this seems such a waste of time. What is the reason for /not/
I do see the point in using wiki's for developing and maintaining
documentation. They /can/ be great for that.