On 10/24/07, Steven Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/24/07, Derrick Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > not everyone has VMS. > > *nod*, although it has been documented in public (at least some of the > pieces) for quite some time. It seems CMU takes a similar approach, > and I suspect others out there have 'rolled their own'. From the 'me > too's using vos release to handle versioning, it appears having a > general system more widely available would scratch a real itch.
where's Phil so I can beat him up some more? > It has _everything_ to do with namespace management. In absence of > better tools, people are using vos release to do just that. Note that > vos release isn't a bad tool; it's just being stretched beyond its > design because people need a way to do versioning of their namespaces. you want to dump and restore volumes. that's ugly. it's not a namespace issue; you want versioned volume clones.
