Re: AW: "cvs move" command

Hi Matt,

>>> ``Moving a file to another directory becomes a bit of a challenge, since
we
>>> now have a mapping that spans a single directory. So some means of
>>> linking these PDDB`s must be developed. I could actually envision a
>>> repository structure where EVERY file is stored in the same flat
>>> directory.''

>> My thougts. The only thing I'm concerned about is that the ext2 file
system
>> would have it's problems with this, as it's performance slows down with a
>> high amount of files in a single directory. But that's a system specific
>> problem and guess this doesn't account to the new ext3 file system.

> As far as I recall, doesn't ext3 use the same layout on disk, plus
journalling info? 
> ReiserFS may be better - wasn't it designed for different usage scenarios?

> http:// www.namesys.com/ for more info..

> Perhaps it would be better to store all the files in a database, rather
than 
> many-files-in-one-directory. Hashing the files across a tree of
directories would be better, 
> although what could you use as the hash key? You couldn't use file name,
since in a rename/move, 
> that'd change..?

IHMO, it would be VERY BETTER to store in dbase (MySQL as first candidate, I
think), in this 
case you may not trouble about hash, will get right rolling back (in case,
if dbase support transactions), simplify administration, GUI clients,
backup/restore ...

But, I admit, translating tree structure of projects to tables will eat 
more (I presume very more) space and performance then build same over FS :(.
For me it's 
along reason, why converting cvs to dbase is problematically.

Comments?


Regards,
Andrey

P.S. Please reply me directly, I'm not in mail list.