linux-kernel - Re: git guidance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200712072204.48410.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:04:48 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Jakub Narebski <jnareb@...il.com>
Cc:	Andreas Ericsson <ae@....se>,
	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@....de>,
	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jing Xue <jingxue@...izenstudio.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, git@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git guidance

Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> writes:
> > For example:
> >
> >   echo "// last comment on this file" >> /gitfs.mounted/file
> >
> > should do an implied checkpoint, and make these checkpoints immediately
> > visible under some checkpoint branch of the gitfs mounted dir.
> >
> > Note, this way the developer gets version control without even noticing,
> > and works completely transparent to any kind of application.
>
> Why not use versioning filesystem for that, for example ext3cow
> (which looks suprisingly git-like, when you take into account that
> for ext3cow history is linear and centralized, so one can use date
> or sequential number to name commits).
>
> See GitLinks page on Git Wiki, "Other links" section:
>   http://www.ext3cow.com/

Sure, Linus mentioned the cow idea before in this thread, but you would still 
need a few hacks to get some basic Version Control features.  

> Version control system is all about WORKFLOW B, where programmer
> controls when it is time to commit (and in private repository he/she
> can then rewrite history to arrive at "Perfect patch series"[*1*]);
> something that for example CVS failed at, requiring programmer to do
> a merge if upstream has any changes when trying to commit.

Because WORKFLOW C is transparent, it won't affect other workflows.  So you 
could still use your normal WORKFLOW B in addition to WORKFLOW C, gaining an 
additional level of version control detail at no extra cost other than the 
git-engine scratch repository overhead.

BTW, is git efficient enough to handle WORKFLOW C?


Thanks!

--
Al

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/