On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Jerome de Vivie wrote:
> Rik van Riel a écrit :
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> > > b) Filesystem support for SCM is really a flawed approach.
> >
> > Agreed. I mean, how can you cleanly group changesets and
> > versions with a filesystem level "transparent" SCM ?
>
> With label !
>
> In my initial post, i have explain that labels are used to
> identify individual files AND are also uses to select for
> each files of a set, one version (= select a configuration).
> It works !
Hmmmm, so it's not completely transparent. Good.
Now if you want to make this kernel-accessible, why
not make a userland NFS daemon which uses something
like bitkeeper or PRCS as its backend ?
The system would then look like this:
_____ _______ _____ _____
| | | | | | | |
| SCM |--| UNFSD |--| NET |--| NFS |
|_____| |_______| |_____| |_____|
And there, you have a transparent SCM filesystem
that works over the network ... without ever having
to modify the kernel or implement SCM.
> versioning is yet a first step.
And I'm not convinced it is even needed. All you
really need is the glue layer between the SCM
system and the kernel. A user level NFS server
will do this just fine.
regards,
Rik
-- Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release: "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:17 EST