Hi Mario, On 5/21/08, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, my questions are: > * [ ] Do you agree that such an evolution might make sense > * and if so, should I > ** [ ] add a VFS-global (static) flag to enable this wrapper-like-mode or > ** [ ] can I fork VFS to put the current head into maintainance (or more > correct "dormant") mode and start with e.g. VFS 2.0? >
This sounds great - I think what you're describing makes a lot of sense (and would actually solve some long standing bugs + performance issues). Since the behavior may drastically change, I'd suggest to fork and go for VFS 2.0 rather than a static flag. Cheers, - Filip --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
