From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Spam Subject: Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:47:49 +0200 Message-ID: <617051682.20040903024749@tnonline.net> References: <20040826150202.GE5733@mail.shareable.org> <4136E0B6.4000705@namesys.com> <1117111836.20040902115249@tnonline.net> <200409021309.04780.oliver@neukum.org> <4137BE36.5020504@slaphack.com> Reply-To: Spam Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Oliver Neukum , Hans Reiser , Linus Torvalds , Jamie Lokier , Horst von Brand , Adrian Bunk , , Christoph Hellwig , , , Alexander Lyamin aka FLX , ReiserFS List Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com To: David Masover In-Reply-To: <4137BE36.5020504@slaphack.com> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > Oliver Neukum wrote: > | Am Donnerstag, 2. September 2004 11:52 schrieb Spam: > | |>> Btw, version control for ordinary files would be a great feature. I |>> think something like it is available through Windows 2000/3 server. |>> Isn't it called "Shadow Copies". It works over network shares. :) |>> |>> It allows you to restore previous versions of the file even if you |>> delete or overwrite it. > | > | > | There's no need to do that in kernel, unless you want to be able > | to force it unto users. > And on apps. Should I teach OpenOffice.org to do version control? > Seems a lot easier to just do it in the kernel, and teach everything to > do version control in one fell swoop. Do you mean in the kernel or as a filesystem/VFS plugin that would extend the functionality to include version control? ~S