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
next prev parent 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