4 ms·
DVCS is a relatively new technology. We're still figuring out the best ways of designing and using it. To continue your filesystem analogy, filesystems were in
by elwin 13y ago
DVCS is a relatively new technology. We're still figuring out the best ways of designing and using it.
To continue your filesystem analogy, filesystems were invented sometime around 1960, but it was over 20 years before everyone settled on Unix-style filesystems, where files are just a sequence of bytes. Eventually, they realized implementing version control or record structures at the filesystem level was unnecessary. DVCS implementations may similarly grow more alike and become simpler.
- dingaling 13y ago> Eventually, they realized implementing version control or record structures at the filesystem level was unnecessary. I wouldn't say 'unnecessary'; it's more the case that the quick and dirty Unix and DOS solutions 'won' by deign of being easy for implementers & users. And ever since then we've been hacking-on the features that were lost because of this. Two features we lost: 1. Generational data groups, as on MVS. The OS automatically keeping a history of changes to the 'file' 2. Addressing any file as an RDBMS table, as on OS/400. Amazingly flexible.
- qznc 13y ago1. is addressed by svn,git,etc and 2. is addressed by SQLite,BerkeleyDB,etc. The advantage of the user-space solution is that they are portable across OS boundaries, version management is independent of OS, and more diversity. How is it an advantage to put this stuff into the OS? ("in the OS" probably always means "in the kernel" in this context, not "in system user-space libraries")