Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8

[Bill Zissimopoulos <billziss at navimatics dot com>]

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