Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g
flat view
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: 2005-11-11 17:47:16
Also in:
lkml
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.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
- 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