Subject: Re: bin/32785 [dM] du not terabyte-clean
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/26/2006 15:03:31
In article <200607260659.CAA03656@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>,
der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
>> I think the change is fine. However I'm wondering if it wouldn't be
>> better to somehow version the _ftsent structure. I doubt that du
>> will be the only directory-walking application that will need to deal
>> with 64-bit values.
>That sounds plausible. But I see no need to version FTSENT. As long
>as the existing fields remain valid and at the same offsets, we can add
>all the new fields we like. We can even publicize the new fields.
>After all, the interface does not include its clients ever allocating
>Maybe add fts_qnumber, or fts_uqnumber, or some such?
It is simple enough to version these days...