text: Markus Törnqvist wrote:>On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:19:57AM -0800, Hans Reiser wrote:>> >>>For the case Peter cites, yes, it does add clutter to the pathname to >>say "..metas" (actually, it is "...." now in the current reiser4, not >>"..metas"). This is because you aren't looking for metafile >> >>>>"...." shound like something that could be an alias for ../..>so not much better than reserving the word "metas" from the namespace.>>I guess I'll still go with ..metas here, as it's the best compromise>showed. Or maybe even ..meta (as there is no need for the plural imo)>>Just re-opening a damned useless, old, tired and daft can of worms :P>> >I agree that ..metas is much less likely to cause a namespace collision, but I also think that if we called it "john" it would not be a major problem, and since the issue is causing us political problems in getting into the kernel, "...." is more PR right (as it does not slight Finnish women named meta by suggesting they are too obscure to count), and so "...." wins. "...." also has the advantage that it is elegant in extending the Unix convention, in that we already have a ".." and a "." and hidden files that start with ".".-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at read the FAQ at