[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) writes: > I hope you mean putting it into glibc, so that the rm program won't be > special?
I have no particular preference here. It's a user-interface feature, as I see it. > I can see two reasons to put the versioning features in the filesystem > rather than in glibc: (1) one might want to configure versioning per > filesystem, (2) one might want to support some filesystem with > "native" versioning (are there any?) Versioning and undelete are separate issues. If you have versioning, it's a nice way to get "undelete" too, but you can have undelete without it. > By the way, do you think there's any chance to change the semantics of > open and write? I'd like the default behaviour to be as follows: I think your proposed tweak to the semantics of open are basically right; I don't see the need right now to nail down the exact details. But basically, yeah, if someone opens for O_WRONLY, writes, and closes, it would be nice if the old contents were cleanly saved as a "version". Note that this doesn't say anything about the semantics of unlink... _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
