RE: Fibration questions

["David Dabbs" <david@dabbs.net>]

I see I'm not the only one up late. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Reiser [mailto:reiser@namesys.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:12 AM
> To: David Dabbs
> Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com
> >
> I think this is too implementation dependent of an optimization to be
> allowed to influence API design.
>

Understood.
 
> There is a need for support for * in filename queries.  I would support
> adding that to sys_reiser4.
> 

When the time comes for investigating such support, would it mean a change
to the 'sys_reiser4 syntax' (therefore the parser)? Other than a brief gloss
of a web page that deals with it I haven't investigated the syscall
syntax/capabilities, so pardon if this is misplaced.

> If FS naming was better designed, filenames would not have extensions.
> I prefer to first better design naming, and then not need to optimize
> the API for extensions.

While the subject of priorities is on the table, is there a 'reiser4
janitors' list' similar to the kernel janitors' list? Reading through the
code I've seen a number of XXX-FIXME-HANS, etc. Would these TODOs, assuming
the comments remain relevant, be (one of) the places for those wising to
contribute to investigate?

David