From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hubert Chan Subject: Re: [PATCH] "metas" in reiserfs v4 snapshot 2004.03.26 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:06:33 -0500 Sender: news Message-ID: <87y8phtxk6.fsf@uhoreg.ca> References: <87hdw5vifk.fsf@uhoreg.ca> <200403310307.i2V37dxe008182@sirius.cs.pdx.edu> 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 >>>>> "The" == The Amazing Dragon (Elliott Mitchell) writes: [...] Elliott> One possibility would be to use a character shells tend to grab Elliott> and are therefore extremely uncommon in filenames. The ones Elliott> that come to mind are ! & and \, perhaps it is a matter of Elliott> tweaking the EvilOS folks, but \ seems like a viable Elliott> option. Failing that, I suspect & is also a reasonable option Elliott> as well. But if the shell grabs it, that makes it even more painful to access. We might as well just use ..metas, which is very unlikely to conflict. Also, those uncommon characters you mention (except probably \) won't be that uncommon, especially with GUIs becoming a more common file-management method, and Linux being more accessible to non-techies. Heck, even *I've* named some files with *spaces* in the name! And I've been capitalizing some filenames! (\ is probably a reasonable suggestion, though. But I still prefer ..metas. For one thing, adding another delimiter may cause confusion -- more rules for a user to learn, and would probably involve VFS changes, which I doubt would be accepted. Plus, I think that having mixed forward-slashes and back-slashes in a path name would look ugly.) -- 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.