From: H. Peter Anvin Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:46:59 GMT Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g Message-ID: <4374D913.503@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > 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. > - 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