On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 07:03:23PM +0200, u-codalist-z149_at_aetey.se wrote:
> I had some time to work on the code and here is the result:

You are working on as far as I am concerned 'a bad color lipstick for
the pig'. Actual code savings are not likely to be gained in this area,
you will end up with a system where a user will now ask, why do I have a
dangling symlink to "#105_at_myrealm.org" instead of #user.joe_at_myrealm.org".

> The approximate amount of the modifications:
>  24 files changed, 628 insertions(+), 506 deletions(-)

In fact you just added an extra 122 lines of code, while leaving several
known broken and a couple of probably broken but untested cases. Don't
forget to try volume backups and readonly snapshots they may add some
interesting corner cases too, for instance when an incremental backup
fails and it destroys the old one, allocates a new volume and then tries
a full backup.

As I told you before, you can actually remove quite a bit of very hairy
code by removing replication, which will also get rid of server-server
conflicts, resolution, repair, and a host of other things, eventually
leading to a simpler volume model where there are only read-write and
read-only volumes.

But just respectfully keep on ignoring my opinions.

> Looking forward to the new Coda git repository.

Ah, yes the actual useful part in all of this. I have seen very little
in way of feedback (or patches) coming from your side as far as this is
concerned. (https://github.com/cmusatyalab/coda-git-conversion/)

Jan