> On 10 Mar 2015, at 09:43, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-03-10 9:28 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr
> <mailto:marcus.den...@inria.fr>>:
> >
> > But stiil, the changes allow you a recovery in case of a crash. It has some
> > valuables side effects.
> >
>
> Yes, it was genius to merge both source storage and transaction log 30 years
> ago… today we would
> not do that.
>
> Wouldn't we? Or would we do a more compact log format, optimizing by the
> knowledge of what is in the image and what is inside the package repositories?
>
right now we throw away the transaction log with the image. So we are not
talking about a lot of data.
> i.e. I'm not sure that the fundamental is wrong. Just that the environment is
> a bit different.
>
> I toyed a long time ago with the idea of having a git as a replacement of the
> changes. On every method change, you commit... Has a way of compacting by
> itself the changes. Largely overkill :)
>
> Now, I could also see a scheme based on MC, where the source of a method is
> fetched from the package (with an ast cache, if needed). Not very difficult
> to do.
>
> But it's not very grandiose. Just a bit of software engineering. Not
> interesting ;)
>
Everything is like that. Just your *goal* changes if typing “do:” is part of
something interesting or not.
Marcus
