On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:48 AM, <devuan.kn@???> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Jude Nelson - judecn@???
> <devuan.kn.ae5676beef.judecn#gmail.com@???> wrote:
>>> The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least
>>> common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress.
>>
>> This is simply not true. A key hallmark of good application design is to
>> keep the business logic as decoupled as possible from the layers beneath it,
>> thereby enabling both freedom of choice for the user and independence from
>> the application's needs for the stack's developers. Often, this is achieved
>> by means of a "driver" that translates requests from the business logic to
>> the underlying layers and back.
>
> There is no application design in that proposal whatsoever. It is only
> a proposal to split up a distribution into a set of files with similar
> properties and how to use mount to combine those sets again.
>

I believe this may be beyond a proposal, with or without an application
design. In an email to linux-btrfs called "Recursive subvolume snapshots
and deletion", Lennart states:

"Since a while systemd has now by default creating btrfs subvolumes for
/var/lib/machines for example."

The full text can be found here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg42455.html

He also makes this statement in the email:

"We could work around this in userspace, of course,
but it would not be atomic, and I'd much prefer if the kernel could do
this on its own!"

Just an FYI.