Bryan Wagstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm confused about the 'saving the differences' issue. Are we > considering delayed delete, automatic versioning, both, or something > else entirely?
If you are keeping versions, there is no reason you have to keep N different copies of nearly-identical files (which seems to have been one of your worries). Instead, a clever implementation could keep diffs (referring here to *concept* and not format). > On one side I hear that we are saving diferences (versioning) and on > the other I hear that we are only saving files opened with O_TRUNC, > which are completely erased. I think the issue isn't as hard as it is > being made out to be. "We are" doing nothing yet... > [ I seem to remember that if a file was already opened, it couldn't be > opened again with O_TRUNC | O_CREAT, open would return EACCES because > the file is already being written to. The excption of course was > shared access and file locking, but that's another issue. ] Your memory is incorrect. > So one the one hand we WANT to save differences, as one would do with > a versioning, but on the other hand we NEED to process the file in > Posix fasion, which allows for an undelete. I thought this thread > decided earlier that delayed delete was the goal, and we were > examining cases for applications not written to use an undelete > library or API. I don't think this thread has "decided" anything; some people want undelete (which Roland rightly points out should be called "delayed delete"), others want file versioning, others want other things. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
