From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: [RFC] Pathname Semantics with // Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:40:03 -0700 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <41413E33.5000501@namesys.com> References: <20040910030206.E29B015D9E@mail03.powweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, 'ReiserFS List' , Peter Foldiak Return-path: Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]:502 "EHLO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268127AbUIJFkD (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:40:03 -0400 To: David Dabbs In-Reply-To: <20040910030206.E29B015D9E@mail03.powweb.com> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org David Dabbs wrote: > > > > Do you have a proposal to >expose metadata on a directory such that it > >a) allows one to distinguish a directory entry from directory metadata, > > this should be only a style convention, not a deep semantic difference. Maybe Peter can comment on this. >b) uses only already-reserved pathname character(s), > > this is not important in practice >c) doesn't require any reserved name, > > this is not important in practice >d) is the same delimiter used for file metadata and > > ? >e) doesn't butt heads with Sus? > > standards are not the future, they are efforts to make the past less painful.