Erik Trimble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In order for an FV implementation to be useful for this stated purpose,
> it must fulfill the following requirements:
>
> (1) Clean interface for users. That is, one must NOT be presented with
> a complete list of all versions unless explicitly asked for it, and it
> should be simple to select a version based on some reasonable criteria
> (date of creation/modification, version number, etc.)
>
> (2) Simple way to decide if a file should be versioned or not. Either
> automatically version all files (or none at all), or provide a mechanism
> to turn FV on/off on a per-file or per-directory basis.
>
> (3) Network-FS awareness. Without this, FV is severely limited. Given
> my preconditions above (that is, the current usage pattern of us in the
> non-FS world), limiting FV to those on the local system restricts its
> usefulness to the point where it isn't worth the effort.
The only idea I get thast matches this criteria is to have the versions
in the extended attribute name space.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
