All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kent Borg <kentborg@borg.org>
To: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Versioning File Systems?
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:55:30 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020418125530.C16135@borg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020418110558.A16135@borg.org> <20020418082025.N2710@work.bitmover.com> <20020418172758.Q4498@marowsky-bree.de>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 05:27:58PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Either that, or heuristics - file not written to / opened for writing in x
> minutes -> commit.

Something like that.  

We already have a hierarchy of degrees of saving:

 1. live state - the state of a program's data, possibly extended by
    undo/redo features.

 2. file - saved file, possibly extended by features like emacs'
    "file.c~"

 3. revision - revision checked into some revision control system

 4. checkpoint or tag - revision branded with a symbolic name in a
    revision control system

I am envisioning a richer version of the file stage.  Just as users
currently decide when to check in a version and when to checkpoint
versions, I am imagining that sort of decision would still be made,
but there would be a lower level of granularity that could be looked
at if desired.  Big infrequent changes to a file would all be
recorded, and frequent little changes would be subject to some
heuristic.  It doesn't make sense to record a file's state so often
that it isn't even self-consistent.  For example, recording all the
changes over the course of the save of a big Star Office drawing would
be silly, most would be intermediate and dependent on the changing
epheneral internal state of Star Office.  I don't know the details of
a reasonable heuristic other than obvious things such as when a file
of flushed or closed or not touched for some significant time.

> That would actually be pretty interesting because it might also allow you to
> back out editor screwups ;-)

Writing an editor to take advantage of such underlying features would
be pretty interesting too, it could be integrated into undo/redo
features.  

Navigating such an historical fabric turns into a really interesting
user interface problem.

> However, deducing change sets is more difficult.

I think change sets for source code would still be based on versions
declared by a human to be of some specific interest.  But changes sets
for a computer's configuration might be implicit in the running of rpm
or chkconfig, or reboots of the system, or saved edits to
configuration files.  Etc.

Certainly what I am envisioning would have immediate use in looking at
changes to specific files, but would require more structure imposed to
be useful a system configuration management tool or source code
control system.


I do point out that recently Microsoft announced some sort of feature
to let users backout system changes.  It sounds useful to me and I run
Linux, but should that have some basic system support and not be
kludged in?  (For example, such a feature could be added to rpm, but
it would only be good at capturing things done by rpm.)  Would a
versioning filesystem be part of doing it the right way?


-kb

  reply	other threads:[~2002-04-18 16:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-04-18 15:05 Versioning File Systems? Kent Borg
2002-04-18 15:20 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-18 15:27   ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2002-04-18 16:55     ` Kent Borg [this message]
2002-04-18 17:04       ` Joshua MacDonald
2002-04-20  8:44       ` Thomas Zimmerman
2002-04-18 23:19   ` Stevie O
2002-04-19  4:12     ` Mark Mielke
2002-04-18 18:11 ` Jeremy Jackson
2002-04-23 22:42 ` Bill Davidsen
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-18 16:51 Kerl, John
2002-04-18 17:24 ` Florin Iucha
2002-04-18 18:14   ` Kent Borg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20020418125530.C16135@borg.org \
    --to=kentborg@borg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lmb@suse.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.