Hi, Aldrik KLEBER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm will not be available for the week end, so to resume MHO, > One way of viewing is RCS shouldn't manage storage, but should be plug to an > interface that adapt to the environment, a POSIX interface, a SQL interface > what we want, but not guiding the design of the RCS, like tla that is POSIX > aware. In theory, I fully agree with you: we should just consider the interface and semantics that storage back-ends should implement to provide all the properties needed by the RCS running on top of it. However, practically, we'll certainly want to favor one particular back-end, one that is convenient and ubiquitous. One of the goals Tom listed, and also one of the strengths of current Arch, is that any sort of hierarchical file system should be enough to allow access to an archive. Thus, if we are to continue in this direction, we'd certainly focus mostly on a storage back-end based on a regular, POSIX-like, file system. Thanks, Ludovic, _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
