[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Unionmount. Basic details

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: Unionmount. Basic details
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:15:31 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)


On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:

> > > unionmount is expected to merge the filesystem on which it sits
> > > with the filesystem exposed by the translator it is asked to start
> > > in unionmount mode (further referred to as ``the Translator'').
> > 
> > Nah, I think there are various clearer ways to name it: e.g. "target
> > translator", or perhaps "inferior" (like in a debugger), or
> > "mountee"... :-)
> My vote is on ``mountee'', as you might of noticed in my other mail.

I'm actually no longer convinced it is such a good idea: although I came
up with the term myself, I found myself pausing at it the first couple
of times I read it in your mails -- seems it isn't quite as intuitive as
I initially believed...

But I guess we all got used to the term by now, so we can just as well
stick with it :-)

> > I don't think we should call it "shadow node": although there are
> > some similarities, it seems to me that it's not quite the same as
> > the shadow nodes in nsmux -- it would be confusing.
> > 
> > For now, I suggest calling it "internal node" or "hidden node". We
> > can still change the name later when the exact role becomes clearer.
> How about ``wedge node''?  I like the image it gives of prying apart
> the mountee from the mount point.  :-)

Yeah, could work :-)

> I'll stick to ``shadow node'' until a decision is made.

Please don't. We may not know exactly what it is yet, but we know for
sure that it's *not* the same as the shadow nodes in nsmux. *Any* of the
suggested terms will cause less confusion, even if we use another one
later on.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]