From: Lyle K. <te...@ke...> - 2001-02-15 20:13:36
|
* ra...@ra... (ra...@ra...) wrote: > On 15 Feb, tma scribbled: > -> Quoting Tom Gilbert <to...@li...>: > -> > * Lyle Kempler (te...@ke...) wrote: > -> > > Metadata files, however, I'm still not convinced putting them in the > -> > > same directory as the files is the best solution, given file > -> > > permissions. I mean, with efm, we still had .icons in the dir if "I > -> > > got there first", and then everybody else had their stuff in > -> > .icons_user.. > the reason the .iconms dirs were there WAs for tarring - so the meta > data woudl follow - for burning iso's of cd's so the meta data can be > ont he cd... i know some poepl dont like it.. but in this case i am > implimenting it as policy this way for many good reasons - the onyl > reasons against it are primarily aesthetics. meta data should follow > the files its for always - and thsi si the closest backwards-compatible > method i could come up with that doesnt make the fs a complete mess. Aesthetics? Read what Tom quoted, I make a technical, not aesthetic, argument. ;P But I do like the ability to configure which directories metadata gets written directly into.. hopefully it'll have opt-in and opt-out functionality? :) If you need help when it gets to that stage, lemme know.. if it's after the wedding, I'll help out. term |