From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp
In-Reply-To: <20011008144648.63B1319A0B@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0110081051010.11810-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Mon,  8 Oct 2001 11:00:24 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 01efa67c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025



On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, rob pike wrote:

> > We accept that the "trees" (you're perfectly right about directed
> > graphs) are rooted at the same fileserver, I think.
> 
> Do you?  A mv-tree thingy would require the server to know the name
> space of the client to get this right.  The server doesn't know that
> one of the files in the client's tree is somewhere else.  I honestly
> don't see a reasonable way to do this right, even if we don't worry
> about race conditions (and we do).

Actually, there's another fun issue here:

bind /foo/bar/baz /quux
cd /quux/crap
mv /foo/bar/baz/crap /foo/bar/crap
cd ..

Where should we end up?  I have a somewhat reasonable answer for our
semantics of bindings, but I don't see it for Plan 9 one.