Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:15:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:15:05 -0400 Received: from sdsl-208-184-147-195.dsl.sjc.megapath.net ([208.184.147.195]:7200 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:14:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:14:54 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Rik van Riel Cc: Jerome de Vivie , Larry McVoy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdev@vger.kernel.org, martizab@libertsurf.fr, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: Yet another linux filesytem: with version control Message-ID: <20010723161454.C14425@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Rik van Riel , Jerome de Vivie , Larry McVoy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdev@vger.kernel.org, martizab@libertsurf.fr, rusty@rustcorp.com.au In-Reply-To: <3B5CA2EC.2498775@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 07:29:36PM -0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 07:29:36PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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. I like the way you think, Rik. About 2 years ago I did a very quick and ugly version of exactly this, just as a proof of concept. You could mount old versions of the repositories and diff them, etc. Quite cool. It's long since out of date and it adds a layer of caching and performance loss that I wasn't willing to live with, but it's a cool idea. When we have more time than problems I might get back to that. I think it is the right approach. As to the comments he made about mixing files, that's not a problem. You do need some way to tell UNFDS that this file is to be revision controlled and that one is not, but with that you can let .o's be created and just managed in the backing file system. Works fine. The interface to revision control stuff seems ugly because you have to be explicit, but that can be made nice. Suppose we used fake subdirectories as a way of doing operations, such that mv *.c ./.checkin does a checkin, etc. That's not so bad and you need the interface anyway to tell the system you are ready to check things in. You don't want it to check in a new version every time you modify the file, that's excessive. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/