Re: travel

Hi,

Aldrik KLEBER <[email protected]> writes:

> I'm will not be available for the week end, so to resume MHO,
> One way of viewing is RCS shouldn't manage storage, but should be plug to an 
> interface that adapt to the environment, a POSIX interface, a SQL interface 
> what we want, but not guiding the design of the RCS, like tla that is POSIX 
> aware.

In theory, I fully agree with you: we should just consider the interface
and semantics that storage back-ends should implement to provide all the
properties needed by the RCS running on top of it.

However, practically, we'll certainly want to favor one particular
back-end, one that is convenient and ubiquitous.  One of the goals Tom
listed, and also one of the strengths of current Arch, is that any sort
of hierarchical file system should be enough to allow access to an
archive.  Thus, if we are to continue in this direction, we'd certainly
focus mostly on a storage back-end based on a regular, POSIX-like, file
system.

Thanks,
Ludovic,