2010/4/17 <david@xxxxxxx>: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Miguel Ramos wrote: > >> Well, David, you certainly made a good case defending using a VCS for >> filesystems. >> However, a versioned filesystem should be more adequate for that. > > a versioned filesystem will not let you easily clone or backup your system. > a versioned filesystem could be a nice UI to access a DVCS that would give > you this sort of ability > >> Why would one want diffs, patches, branches, merges for the entire >> filesystem? > > these all seem like very useful things to me > > diffs to find out what changed when a system gets broken, or after something > new is installed. > > patches could be a way to either install software, or to propogate updates > between systems. > > branches could easily be different systems > > merges are for when you have two systems each doing one job and you want to > combine them onto one piece of hardware (could could do it with > virtualization, if you are willing to pay the overhead). you wouldn't want > to merge the binary files, but you would want to merge the branches that > contain binary files. > > there are many reasons why you don't just use your linux distro tools to > manage large numbers of machines and configurations. > > David Lang Yes, you certainly are right. It does open up a set of new possibilities. Even better if it was based on a binary diff, because otherwise you either had to be very conservative updating software or run out of space. -- Miguel Ramos <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> PGP A006A14C -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html