Re: BK-like functionality (was Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch/subversion comparison question)

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Denys Duchier <address@hidden>

    > Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

    > > One idea is to work out how to store your personal arch project trees
    > > in a Subversion archive.   The intention of the idea is that
    > > minute-to-minute, you can have a CVS-like experience but then, when
    > > you want to coordinate with others, you have arch.
    > >
    > > Now, to be sure -- for some of us this an absurdity.   The idea of
    > > running a Subversion archive is not attractive.   This combination
    > > idea is horribly bloated and so forth.
    > 
    > I don't know: if we are just talking about a SVN fs, then it doesn't
    > seem entirely absurd to use just that to provide smart revlib
    > support.

That also makes some potential sense.  Again -- it would be a
needlessly bloated (and additionally fragile and, due to BDB logs
awkward) implementation of delta-compressed revlib storage -- but at
least a demonstration of concept.

No, I meant something different.   Roughly speaking, a system where
"between arch commits" you have a system that feels more or less like
CVS (file rather than changeset oriented) and "at arch commits" just
summarizes a collection of those CVS-like commits as a changeset.

Rather like emacs backup files on steroids.

(Note that I'm not endorsing the idea or pining for it myself.   I
just meant to point out the correlation between this old idea and 
recently mentioned comparison to BK.   It might have resonated with
someone as "yes, that's exactly what I want.")

-t