[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...)
From: |
Thomas Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...) |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:00:17 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) |
Peter> I don't think an RCS should have any special knowledge about
Peter> specific applications. An RCS as such should be able to handle
Peter> office stuff or wikis or whatever as binary or maybe plain text
Peter> files, nothing more. Keep It Small & Simple.
Peter> An RCS *should* be extendable in a way that made it better at
Peter> handling specific file formats, e. g. by making the diff and
Peter> merge algorithms exchangable.
I agree that an RCS should be simple, have a small core, and have a
modular and extensible architecture.
It does not follow from that that an RCS should always treat files
with non-line-oriented formats as plain text or binary files. That
might be a good fallback but it isn't desirable in the general case.
Two issues come to mind:
1. delta compression
If and when an RCS makes use of delta compression for storage,
for some media types, media-specific delta computation is
desirable.
2. delta signing and archiving
One of the roles of an RCS is to archive commits along with
authentication information: signed commits.
It is useful for users to be able to sign complete revisions,
asserting "This is the whole tree I am committing."
It is *also* useful for users to be able to sign applicable
deltas, asserting "This accurately describes the changes I
am making."
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0?, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0?, Andy Tai, 2006/04/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0?, Thomas Lord, 2006/04/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Matteo Settenvini, 2006/04/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Aldrik KLEBER, 2006/04/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Peter Conrad, 2006/04/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Thomas Lord, 2006/04/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...),
Thomas Lord <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Nathaniel Smith, 2006/04/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Thomas Lord, 2006/04/21