On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
On 04/27/2010 07:23 AM, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
Hello,
I'm new to git and I'm looking for the following features:
1.) Metadata for
a.) directory versioning (e.g. add/rm, mv)
If you're talking about empty directories, that feature doesn't
exist and I can't imagine why you'd want it to. If you'd care to
explain why you want it, I'm sure we can find a different way of
achieving your goal.
Git focuses on content but I think git should also focus on
metadata. For example restructuring source code moves (git mv
file1.c file2.c, git mv dir1 dir2) should be documented also in the
repository like e.g. subversion and commercial SCM like clearcase do.
Otherwise we are on "CVS" level.
Empty directories is a special case and sometimes you need just versioned
empty directies.
b.) rights (basic: chmod, chow, chgrp, extended: extended attributes
like ACLs and selinux), necessary for versioning e.g. /etc
Sounds like you want a backup-program. Some projects have been
aimed towards this goal already. I'm sure google can provide
more information. AFAIR, most of them work with two hook-scripts
that update a regular file with the meta-data of all tracked
files. This makes committing and checking out slower than it
would otherwise be, but since it's doing more I suppose that's
to be expected.
Adding it to core git would mean re-designing git's basic data
model, which is obviously not something we're about to do on
a whim.
No, I'm NOT looking for a backup program. Every admin has the problem of
versioning config files (for example /etc). Versioning of config files
makes sense because one can track the changes and e.g. correlate to
problems. A backup program doesn't have features like history, committer
and comments on file changes. Therefore git would be a perfect tool also for
versioning configuration. (Software development doesn't end with the build
but typically also has deployment&configuration issues).
And when you think about a destroyed machine where you want to
get your versioned configuration you also want to get the right
permissions therefore. Otherwise you have for sure a security leak or a
non working machine.
You can also think on machines where the same config should be used and
tracked.
2.) Original file dates (checkin date) on clone and pull (and not
checkout date)
I expect the solutions that work for 1b will also have this
"feature", or that it will be easy to patch for it. For a
source code management system though, this is a very bad
idea indeed since it messes with the fundamental rules of
building; A changed file must be rebuilt.
Seeing as this would also require a major change in git's
data model, this is another of those changes that I doubt
will be supported in the git core in the foreseeable future.
I agree that a changed file must be rebuilt but in the normal "forward"
cases that's also guaranteed with commit dates as they are "later". But
when you get an old version you can't assume anything (e.g. dependencies
have completly changed, even file structure) and therefore only a clean
build (e.g. make clean) is IHMO valid.
I think git already has the commit date for the revision the user wants.
Therefore only a call to "set_date_and_time" is necessary when a file
is touched (e.g. by switch --use-commit-timestamps, environment variable
or by config item). Therefor this should IHMO be easy to implement without
any metadata changes.
Thnx.
Ciao,
Gerhard
--
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