devicemapper and stateless? (was Re: who needs unionfs!, was Re: [Fedora-livecd-list] experimental unionfs and initramfs code)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 21:12 -0700, Jane Dogalt wrote:
>  > Or maybe they are playing devicemapper tricks that I've never even
> > suspected...
> > 
> > Very interesting, and very worth watching...
> 
> So apparently...  You no longer need unionfs to have a union.
> 
> Very interesting...  (if my guestimation and being too lazy to read up on
> devicemapper are not leading to my misunderstanding)
> 
I just saw this go by on planet.fedoraproject.org::
http://blogs.gnome.org/view/markmc/2006/04/25/0

notting or jeremy: Is markmc working on something like this as part of
stateless or is the devicemapper work he's doing totally unrelated?

Is there anyway to stay abreast of what's currently happening for
stateless?  Working on liveCD stuff becomes something of a moving target
if we don't know what possibilities are actively seeing work in the
underlying infrastructure.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/attachments/20060425/0d813d29/attachment.bin