Re: metastore (was: Track /etc directory using Git)
- From
- david@lang.hm <david@lang.hm>
- Date
- Sep 16, 2007, 01:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709151831401.24221@asgard.lang.hm>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709151430040.5298@iabervon.org>
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
>> The reason why I say this should be done inside git rather than with >> hooks and an external tool, such as metastore is quite simple: git >> knows about every content entity in any tree of a repo and already has >> a data node for each object. Rather than introducing a parallel object >> database (shadow hierarchy or single file), it would make a lot more >> sense and be way more robust to attach additional information to these >> object nodes, wouldn't it? > > Git doesn't have any way to represent owners or groups, and they would > need to be represented carefully in order to make sense across multiple > computers. If you're adding support for metadata-as-content (for more > than "is this a script?"), you should be able to cover all of the common > cases of extended stuff, like AFS-style ACLs. And if you want to allow > meaningful development with this mechanism (as opposed to just archival > of a sequence of states of a live system)
don't underestimate the usefullness of the ability to archive and restore snapshots of a live system. just that ability would be wonderful to have.
the ability to checkout a copy of things elsewhere and tinker with it would be better, but the lack of that doesn't eliminate the utility by any means.
David Lang
Show 5 quoted lines
> , the normal case will be that > the metadata beyond +x is manipulated by ordinary users in some way > other than modifying their working directory. So the normal case here > will be like working on a filesystem that doesn't support symlinks or an > executable bit when this is important content.