On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:41:15AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [A discussion on the git list about how to provide a hardlinked file
> that *cannot* me modified by an editor, but must be replaced by
> a new copy.]
Some time ago there was somebody working on copy-on-write links: once
you modif
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:49:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > perhaps having a new 'immutable hardlink' feature in the Linux VFS
> > would help? I.e. a hardlink that can only be readonly followed, and
> > can be removed, but cannot be chmod-ed to a
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:53:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> so the only sensible thing the editor/tool can do when it wants to
> change the file is precisely what we want: it will copy the
> hardlinked files's contents to a new file, and will replace the old
> file with the new file - a copy on
[A discussion on the git list about how to provide a hardlinked file
that *cannot* me modified by an editor, but must be replaced by
a new copy.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote all of:
>>> perhaps having a new 'immutable hardlink' feature in the Linux VFS
>>> would help? I.e. a hardlink that can only be
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > perhaps having a new 'immutable hardlink' feature in the Linux VFS
> > would help? I.e. a hardlink that can only be readonly followed, and
> > can be removed, but cannot be chmod-ed to a writeable hardlink. That i
> > think would be a large enough b
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> perhaps having a new 'immutable hardlink' feature in the Linux VFS
> would help? I.e. a hardlink that can only be readonly followed, and
> can be removed, but cannot be chmod-ed to a writeable hardlink. That i
> think would be a large enough barrier f
6 matches
Mail list logo
