From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Spam Subject: Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:15:20 +0200 Message-ID: <1888171711.20040827171520@tnonline.net> References: <412EEB75.1030401@namesys.com> Reply-To: Spam Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Hans Reiser , David Masover , Linus Torvalds , Diego Calleja , , , , , , , , , , , , Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com To: Rik van Riel In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > 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. No, not really. This is a user decision and should be options in the backup software. I don't think it is up to the kernel, filesystem, or the OS in general to decide what information the user want to retain or not. > Currently I see no way to distinguish between the stuff > that should be backed up and the stuff that shouldn't. > That problem needs to be resolved before we can even start > thinking about fixing archivers... The archivers should, as I said, allow the user to choose. It shouldn't be automatic. Default, should IMO be to store everything. ~S