Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now, sure, we can talk about the right semantics. We can think of > versioning with automatic expiration of old versions, either by time or by > count. We can talk about making new versions when files are modified or > deleted. We can keep in mind that keeping files around after they have been > "deleted" is keeping fragmentation up. We can also think about border > conditions like what you do if the disk simply is full and you can not keep > the data around sensibly (the bleeping dialog box of Windows is certainly > suboptimal). If there are other semantic categories you are thinking about, > please let us know.
You seem to be taking my point to be some backsided attempt to kill the notion; it's not. What I object to is the vague semantics of "if the bits happen to still be on disk, restore the file." That's miserable. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
