From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp>
Subject: Re: UnionMount status?
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:10:40 +0900
Message-ID: <17402.1268979040@jrobl>
References: <a5d587fb1003181721m49d2debey48c6a6acc326a9a6@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, vaurora@redhat.com
To: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mtoichi14.ns.itscom.net ([219.110.2.184]:38259 "EHLO
	mtoichi14.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750865Ab0CSGLI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:11:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <a5d587fb1003181721m49d2debey48c6a6acc326a9a6@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>


Michal Suchanek:
> I was wondering in what state is the Linux UnionMount. As all other
> union solutions were rejected from the kernel so far the development
> on them is stagnating and it's not exactly easy to get them patched on
> top of new kernels.

As far as I know, the development on aufs (one of other union solution)
is not stagnating, and you can easily apply it against the latest -rc
kernel.
But it never means to keep Val's UnionMount from mainlining.


J. R. Okajima