Re: [PATCH 2/3] Implement mountee startup.

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:51:21AM +0200, unlimitedscolobb@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:29:54PM +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 06:37:54AM +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net
> > > wrote:

> > > > Well, I can't really give a final ACK without seeing the whole
> > > > patch in its final form...
[...]
> > Perhaps you didn't expect the previous version to be final either --
> > if this is the case, please pretend I never said anything about this
> > ;-)
> 
> Well, I didn't expect the previous version to be final :-) But that's
> not a problem :-) I wonder, whether this version is final, though?..

Err... but you haven't sent the current version either :-)

> Namely, the sentence now looks like this: ``This node is based on the
> netnode of the root node (it is essentially a clone of the root node),
> because in this way unionfs appears as the underlying translator to
> the mountee.''

"Because" is not the right word here; and "in this way" is also not
correct English I think... Just say "so that" or so.

In either case, the sentence is clear enough now :-)

> I think we should adopt some conventions in order to remove the
> ambiguity of the word ``underlying''.  I'd suggest using ``underlying
> translator'' to specify the order of translators in a stack,
> ``underlying filesystem'' for the real underlying filesystem, and
> ``unioned directory'' for one of the components of the union managed
> by unionfs.

Sounds reasonable :-)

> I'm strongly inclined to consider the term ``underlying filesystem''
> used for a unioned directory to be unwieldy chosen: firstly, unionfs
> is not operating on filesystems, and secondly, the directories it
> operates on are not underlying to it.

Indeed.

-antrik-