Hello,
I'll comment only on those issues which I feel reluctant to decide on
my own.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:53:27PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:10:24PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > diff --git a/unionmount.c b/unionmount.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..e4aa043
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/unionmount.c
>
> Given that this is to implement the --mount option, I think mount.c
> would be a better name. The context of unionfs establishes that this
> means unioning.
>
> > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> > +/* Hurd unionmount
> > + The core of unionmount functionality.
>
> Again the purpose of the file isn't really to implement unionmount,
> but to implement the --mount option.
The idea is that the ``--mount'' option is just an intermediate step
towards a ``stand-alone'' unionmount implementation. That's why I call
this file in a more general way than just ``mount''.
I remember antrik objecting to this name, too, but I'd like to point
out that the information about unionfs itself is declared in
unionfs.h. This was the reason why I called the two filed
unionmount.{c,h}.
And yes, I'm sorry, I've forgotten to update the copyright
information, so I'll be sending another version of the patch shortly.
Thanks a lot for your comments! :-)
Regards,
scolobb
