On 2005-04-23 14:53:32 -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
> Atomic renames will be worse, because it isn't just one problem, its
> scope remains to be decided. It *sounds* simple, but when you start
> to look at the problem, you realize it's not. We've already seen that
> happening in this thread, and we haven't even scratched the surface
Wouldn't it be just like a property change, the name of a file
being just a meta-information?
Or instead of "rename", shouldn't you say "move"?
How about hard links? Do you plan to implement them one day?
In this case, shouldn't this be discussed at the same time as
renames/moves and would "atomic renames" still make sense?