Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:12:40 +0900 From: Daichi GOTO <daichi@freebsd.org> To: Jan Mikkelsen <janm@transactionware.com> Cc: ozawa@ongs.co.jp, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, 'Daichi GOTO' <daichi@freebsd.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "'Mars G. Miro'" <marsgmiro@gmail.com> Subject: Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010) Message-ID: <441901D8.8090506@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <001201c648bd$226b6440$0301a8c0@transactionware.com> References: <001201c648bd$226b6440$0301a8c0@transactionware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jan Mikkelsen wrote: > Daichi GOTO wrote: >> All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions >> and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :) > > OK. How about a merge? > > I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE. Me too, but unfortunately it is difficult with some reasons (detail information http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/). Of course, our patch gives the conditions for integration of -current OK. For -stable is BAD. We must keep the API compatibility of command/library for integration of -stable. With some technical/specifical reasons, our improved unionfs has a little uncompatibility. For the last time, integration of -stable will be left to the judgment of src committers and others. > Regards, > > Jan Mikkelsen. -- Daichi GOTO, http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?441901D8.8090506>