Lares Moreau wrote: >Has a ;real' revision control system been considered? Something that >doesn't need to copy the entire file on change. Taking the techiques >learned from CVS/Subverion et.al. and implimenting a variation of the >versioning database within the file system. > > all it needs is someone to write it.....
>On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 16:56 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote: > > >>On November 11, 2005 05:59 am, John Gilmore wrote: >> >> >>>Does anybody remember GoBack? It was a versioning >>>system for windows 95/98 that was incredibly flexible and useful. Tracked >>>all changes to the whole disk. Old versions of a file? no problem. grab an >>>old version of a directory for referance temporarily? easy. Got a virus? >>>revert the whole HD, and then grab the newer copies of your documents and >>>saved games as needed. >>> >>> >>My thoughts on this: >> >>The versioning would be an audit plugin. When the file is modified, tag the >>current version, copy it into a sub-directory (oh, I don't know, say >>file/.revisions/<number/date>), and disable write access to it. You might not >>even need extended filesystem attributes for this, but they would be handy >>for tagging particular versions. >> >>Copy-on-write would make this action extremely cheap, only adding a couple of >>extra writes to make it work. >> >>Given working resource directories, COW, and the ability to set plugins, this >>might be a relatively easy hack to implement. Given an efficient xpath shell, >>you could even create a view of your drive on a particular day. >> >>If you had a file that was changing often, perhaps you could set an attribute >>on that file which told it only to clone the file every once in a while. >> >>Come to think of it, a userspace daemon could run in the background and >>replace the need for a plugin, which is probably the better solution. Then >>you just need COW and files which can contain resources. >> >>-pvh >> >> >>
