2010/4/17  <david@lang.hm>:
quoted text
> 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@miguel.ramos.name>
PGP A006A14C
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html