On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 01:46:09PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:41, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 12:06:40AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:43:29PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> > I'll try to tweak my proposal such that successor ID updates become
> >> > transactional and happen as part of every commit.
> >> Here's a first shot at this. Comments welcome.
> > FSFS gurus:
> > Are any of you looking at this?
> > Do you think this is worth writing a prototype implementation for?
> > I have so far only received feedback from danielsh. This makes me very
> > happy but if anyone with a couple more years of FSFS experience under
> > their belt could comment I would be even happier.
> I'm not FSFS guru, but I still feel that FSFS successor ID doesn't
> worth to be implemented because there is no strong reasons/usage for
> it. For me it looks like bottom-up design approach.
Hmmm... you don't think that auto-resolving tree-conflicts involving
moves during merges is worth implementing?
Received on 2011-09-05 11:53:38 CEST