Hello, On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:21:42PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: >> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:56:04PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > >> > The idea was to create new branches in the existing unionfs >> > repository, rather than creating another repository. >> >> Hm... I have a conceptual question, then: do I understand it right >> that unionmount will become a kind of a child project of unionfs? > > Uhm, no... You are right of course: Creating a new branch in the unionfs > repository is not really the right thing in the long run. > > As discussed on IRC, I believe that both unionfs and unionmount should > ultimately live in different directories of the main Hurd repository.
I see... Thank you for the explanation. > (I'm not sure why unionfs was put on hurdextras in the first place -- > there seems to be no problem with copyright assignments, so it can be > included in the main repository just fine...) I'm afraid Thomas could be against moving unionfs (and unionmount, probably, too) into the main repository... >> And another one (not conceptual already): does having a Savannah >> account suffice to create a new branch in the existing unionfs >> repository? > > Having a Savannah account doesn't suffice for that; but having write > permissions on the Hurd repositories does. You should have gotten that > last summer... Great :-) And yep, Thomas granted me write permission last summer. Thanks for the information :-) Regards, scolobb
