On 7/18/16, 12:43 PM, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
>On 7/18/16, 1:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>Btw., I didn't apply it yet because I was still waiting for a mailing >>list reply to https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2016-06/msg00460.html >>On second thought, this didn't look like a question, much. So, what do >>you prefer? >> >> "WinFSP+nobody" >> "nodomain+nobody" >> "no+body" >> >>Personally I like the third variation but I'm not religious about it. > >My preference is for nodomain+nobody, primarily because the individual >components “nodomain”, “nobody” describe the lack of domain and username >when read in isolation (i.e. not in the construction nodomain+nobody). But >WinFsp does not use these names (only the SID’s/UID’s) and you, Corinna, >as the Cygwin lead are more qualified than me to choose what fits Cygwin >best. BTW, I now note that no+body is more inline with the existing practice of "Unknown+User”. I assumed that the parts of the “no+body” construction can be found in isolation (resulting in a domain of “no” and a user name of “body”), but perhaps this is not possible. Either way I am happy with whatever you choose. Bill