public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox