Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:46:59 -0800

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> Two reasons against renaming:
> 
> - we call it fsck-objects for a reason. We are working on a file system, 
>   which just so happens to be implemented in user space, not kernel space.
>   If lost+found has to find a new name, so does fsck-objects.
> 

I'm sorry, but that is bull.  The problem here isn't the conventional 
naming, it's that you're implementing your filesystem on top of another 
filesystem, and you're running into a layering conflict.

> - lost+found has a special meaning, granted. So, a backup would not be 
>   made of it. So what? I *don't* want it backup'ed. I want to repair what
>   was wrong with it. When I repaired it, the result is stored somewhere
>   else. To backup lost+found would make as much sense as to backup /tmp.
> 

The default should ALWAYS be no data loss.

	-hpa