Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:19:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>, git@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g
In-Reply-To: <43737EC7.6090109@zytor.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511111516170.7575@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
References: <7vmzkc2a3e.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <43737EC7.6090109@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1042
Lines: 28

Hi,

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> May I *STRONGLY* urge you to name that something different. "lost+found" 
> is a name with special properties in Unix; for example, many backup 
> solutions will ignore a directory with that name.

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.

- 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.

Ciao,
Dscho


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/