Re: libquota proposal

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 02:07:50PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Mar 19,  5:45pm, bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
> 
> | > Everywhere? If "quota2" is going to be the standard quota and the old one
> | > is going to be deprecated, then it is better to call it "quota" and rename
> | > the old one.
> | 
> | At this point, in the source 'quota1' is used for the old
> | quota format, 'quota2' for the new one and 'quota' for the few things
> | that are common.
> 
> Are we planning to keep quota1 around for more than 6.0?

I have no strong feeling about it. If we drop it, we'll also drop
backward compat support for quotactl ...

> If not, it will
> look funny to have quota2 in the future...

when quota1.[ch] is dropped, quota2.[ch] can easily be merged back in
quota.[ch]. I don't see a strong need to mess with file names right now.

There is also the question about options QUOTA vs QUOTA2. They can be renamed
to QUOTA1 (or OQUOTA) and QUOTA respectively, that's not a problem.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--