Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

[Jonathan Edwards]

On Oct 6, 2006, at 23:42, Anton B. Rang wrote: I don't agree that version control systems solve the same problem as file versioning. I don't want to check *every change* that I make into version control -- it makes the history unwieldy. At the same time, if I make a change that turns out to work really poorly, I'd like to revert to the previous code -- not necessary the code which is checked in. (I suspect there may be some versioning systems which allow intermediate versions to be deleted, and I just haven't used them, but this still seems complex compared to only checking in known-good code.) The use cases are somewhat different here.  I would venture to say that a *personal* file versioning system needs to be thought of differently from a *group* co-ordination formal version control system.  Of course there is a fair amount of overlap in both use cases particularly when you consider a global namespace and concurrent access problems as you can see in the cedar or plan9 systems (fossil/venti): http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=42392.42398 http://cm.bell-labs.com/plan9/ And if we were to also consider dynamic linking and versioning for depracated functions, there's another whole level of parallel backwards compatibility interface problems that are become much easier to approach. While this is an FV discussion, I do believe that we need some sort of clearer distinction between FV, VC, DR, CDP, and Snapshotting structured around the usability cases and close/sync vs a forced version mark/branch .. there's too much confusion in this space often with conflicting goals misapplied to often solve similar problems. .je

_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss