Re: [PATCH 0/5] Change unionfs argument handling policy

[Sergiu Ivanov]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 06:32:10PM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 01:52:50PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:08 PM, <olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> > > But now that you mention it, I see that indeed it might be an
> > > interesting option to let settrans do all the setup, and have the
> > > translator component only serve as a helper...
> [...]
> > Do you mean that ``settrans --unionmount'' should use unionfs to
> > actually do the union mount?
> 
> Perhaps. The ideas are all very vague still.
> 
> > If so, what shall the mountee sit on?
> 
> Obviously, we need some helper that handles the internal node.

I guess we still have to discuss the details, if you don't
mind. (Probably, on the IRC, even).
 
> > If not so, I fail to see any special advantage of this syntax compared
> > to ``settrans <node> unionmount <translator>''.
> 
> The obvious advantage is that it is simpler and more intuitive for the
> user.

I think we have to decide whether this advantage is worth the effort
of modifying settrans and (apparently) adding some helpers for
handling the internal node...
 
> Not sure about the technical merits yet...

I'm not either...

Regards,
scolobb