Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2005, 17:46 UTC
Message-ID: <4374D913.503@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511111516170.7575@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> 
> 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.

Show 5 quoted lines

> - 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.

	-hpa