Re: version numbers (or backups) on non-Symbolics filesystems

[kanderso@wilma.bbn.com]

  Date: Thu, 19 Nov 87 10:05:50 EST
  From: Roy M Turner <royt%pravda.gatech.edu@BBN.COM>
  Message-Id: <8711191505.AA11773@pravda.gatech.edu>
  To: GUMBY@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
  Cc: slug@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
  In-Reply-To: David Vinayak Wallace's message of Thu, 19 Nov 87 05:07:47 EST <288194.871119.GUMBY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
  Subject: Re: version numbers (or backups) on non-Symbolics filesystems
  ReSent-Date: Thu 19 Nov 87 10:14:29-CST
  ReSent-From: CMP.SLUG@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
  ReSent-To: SLUG: ;
  ReSent-Message-ID: <12351878391.44.CMP.SLUG@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>

  > You could also use a filesystem with version numbers.  I cannot
  > understand how, in this day and age, people still advocate a
  > filesystem which has not caught up with the 1960's.
   
  *I* don't advocate the file system on the Sun; that doesn't change the fact
  that we're stuck with it, though!
  
  In any case, thanks for your reply.
  
  Roy

I lost something. Which file system has not caught up with the 1960's,
ones with version numbers or ones without?  They have both been around
a long time.  I find automatic version numbers mildly annoying at
best.  At least Unix lets you have it both ways, for example we use
an NFS on our LISPM and Suns that maintains version numbers in
directories that have files with version number extensions.

k