Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:18:30 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:43:34 CDT, David Masover said:
> And on apps. Should I teach OpenOffice.org to do version control? > Seems a lot easier to just do it in the kernel, and teach everything to > do version control in one fell swoop.
Including files you didn't really want to keep version control of?
How many temp files does gcc create and unlink in the course of a kernel build? (And remember, you can't say "don't enable that on /tmp" - gcc respects the setting of $TMPDIR - so an 'export TMPDIR=~/tmp' confuses things quite nicely...)
And it's hard for the kernel to know that an unlink() done by gcc should be treated differently than the "recover the last version" you *want* it do be able to do after you work on a source file for a long while, save it, and then fumble-finger a 'rm * .o' - you can't even use a heuristic like "don't version control it unless it's N seconds or more old"
(Note that the "obvious" solution of creating a chattr flag has its own complexity issues - should versioning be turned on by default for some types and not others, etc...)
There be dragons here - it's not as simple as "drop in a plugin and be happy".
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |