From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hubert Chan Subject: Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:40:27 -0400 Sender: news Message-ID: <87llg0mnl0.fsf@uhoreg.ca> References: <412EEB75.1030401@namesys.com> <1888171711.20040827171520@tnonline.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Spam" == Spam writes: > Rik van Riel wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Hans Reiser wrote: >>> Why are you guys even considering going to any pain at all to >>> distort semantics for the sake of backup? tar is easy, we'll fix it >>> and send in a patch. >> It's not as easy as you make it out, and not just because there are a >> few dozen backup programs that need fixing. >> The problem is more fundamental than that. Some of the file streams >> proposed need to be backed up, while others are alternative >> presentations of the file, which should not be backed up. Spam> No, not really. This is a user decision and should be options in Spam> the backup software. I don't think it is up to the kernel, Spam> filesystem, or the OS in general to decide what information the Spam> user want to retain or not. Why not just define an attribute named something like "do-not-backup"? Then whatever program that generates the thumbnail can automatically add the do-not-backup bit, and the backup software knows to ignore it. (Obviously, that bit should apply recursively down the subtree.) -- Hubert Chan - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hubert Chan Subject: Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:40:27 -0400 Sender: news Message-ID: <87llg0mnl0.fsf@uhoreg.ca> References: <412EEB75.1030401@namesys.com> <1888171711.20040827171520@tnonline.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Spam" == Spam writes: > Rik van Riel wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Hans Reiser wrote: >>> Why are you guys even considering going to any pain at all to >>> distort semantics for the sake of backup? tar is easy, we'll fix it >>> and send in a patch. >> It's not as easy as you make it out, and not just because there are a >> few dozen backup programs that need fixing. >> The problem is more fundamental than that. Some of the file streams >> proposed need to be backed up, while others are alternative >> presentations of the file, which should not be backed up. Spam> No, not really. This is a user decision and should be options in Spam> the backup software. I don't think it is up to the kernel, Spam> filesystem, or the OS in general to decide what information the Spam> user want to retain or not. Why not just define an attribute named something like "do-not-backup"? Then whatever program that generates the thumbnail can automatically add the do-not-backup bit, and the backup software knows to ignore it. (Obviously, that bit should apply recursively down the subtree.) -- Hubert Chan - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.