On Thursday 12 January 2006 02:34 pm, you wrote:
> On Thursday 12 January 2006 01:44 am, you wrote:
> > Hans Reiser wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am skeptical that having it occur with every
> > >write is desirable actually.
> > >
> >
> > Consider the case where you type cat file1 >> file2. This will produce
> > a version of file2 for every 4k that is in file1, because (well I didn't
> > look at the bash source, but I would guess) it appends in 4k incremental
> > writes rather than one big write. Versioning on file close makes more
> > sense, but I suggest manual control using the ..../checkin pseudofile,
> > and then we can reasonably make it the default plugin for the whole FS
> > (write it so that it calls the other plugins so that when we change the
> > other plugins we don't need to change your code to do it). People who
> > don't want versioning will simply never touch the checkin pseudofile.
> > Make sure that for that case there is just an if statement condition
> > check as overhead, and there will be no reason to not make versioning
> > the default plugin that happens to do nothing unless you use the checkin
> > pseudofile at least once during the life of the file.
> >
> > hmm, maybe ..../snap is better than ..../checkin ? Well, let's decide
> > that once the code is written....;-)
> >
> > Do you agree with my points here?
>
Yes I agree with your points. Still, i will like that some files have auto
versioning.
