[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bacula-devel] [Bacula-users] Bacula Status


On Monday 06 October 2008 22:04:39 Martin Simmons wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:05:49 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
> >
> > On Monday 06 October 2008 06:22:51 Troy Daniels wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere (been offline for a week
> > > or so, so am still catching up on my emails :) )
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > > It is not too late to change the name of the directive, but I would
> > > > like to see some discussion/input on this.  Although I don't have any
> > > > strong attachment to "Ignore Dir",  I think I personally prefer it to
> > > > "Exclude Flag File", which will be harder for me to remember.
> > >
> > > I found 'IgnoreDir' to be non intuitive - Looking at it, it initially
> > > struck me as an option to specify a directory to ignore rather than to
> > > specify a file to cause a directory to be ignored. ie, Ignore Dir =
> > > "SVN" would ignore the directory if *it was called* "SVN" not *if it
> > > contained* a file/dir with that name.
> > >
> > > To make it more clearer, maybe one of the following:
> > >
> > > Ignore Dir Containing
> > > Exclude Dir Containing
> > > Ignore Dir Holding
> > > Ignore Dir Holding
> > >
> > > Using the Exclude* syntax would keep it in line with current Bacula
> > > naming conventions as well.
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
>
> If it hasn't been done already, it could be useful to consider how this
> affects the mental model that users have of the include/exclude algorithm
> (which is already a source of some difficulty).  This applies to the
> fstypes and drivetypes directives as well.
>
> There are two things about these directives that make them different from
> others:
>
> 1) The current implementation is within the Options clause, so the config
> can potentially have more than one per fileset.  Is that desirable or does
> it just over-complicate the issue?
>
> 2) The directories are excluded *after* being included in the backup
> according to the Options matching.  In all other cases, an exclude cannot
> override a matching include.
>
> I may be less confusing to put the new directive at the top level of the
> fileset directive, outside any of the Include or Exclude clauses.

I personally don't find it that confusing, but am willing to admit that some 
would.  So, what is the solution?   

Drop the feature?

Change the feature?
If it involves programming, please realize that this is contributed code, and 
so any changes would have to be agreed on by some sort of consensus, and then 
done by someone other than the developers or perhaps by the author.

Kern

>
> __Martin
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win
> great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere
> in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-devel mailing list
> Bacula-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
Bacula-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel


This mailing list archive is a service of Copilotco.