Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:53:37 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel <joern@logfs.org>
To: alan <alan@clueserver.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
       Jack Stone <jack@hawkeye.stone.uk.eu.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: Versioning file system
Message-ID: <20070616145337.GA13391@lazybastard.org>
References: <46731169.2090002@hawkeye.stone.uk.eu.org> <467314E2.9010306@zytor.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706151547200.27993@blackbox.fnordora.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706151547200.27993@blackbox.fnordora.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1084
Lines: 27

On Fri, 15 June 2007 15:51:07 -0700, alan wrote:
> 
> >Thus, in the end it turns out that this stuff is better handled by
> >explicit version-control systems (which require explicit operations to
> >manage revisions) and atomic snapshots (for backup.)
> 
> ZFS is the cool new thing in that space.  Too bad the license makes it 
> hard to incorporate it into the kernel.

It may be the coolest, but there are others as well.  Btrfs looks good,
nilfs finally has a cleaner and may be worth a try, logfs will get
snapshots sooner or later.  Heck, even my crusty old cowlinks can be
viewed as snapshots.

If one has spare cycles to waste, working on one of those makes more
sense than implementing file versioning.

Jörn

-- 
"Security vulnerabilities are here to stay."
-- Scott Culp, Manager of the Microsoft Security Response Center, 2001
-
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/