On Oct 6, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>> Concerning the placement of the directive: I think it is worth
>> examining if we can easily move it to the Exclude { } section. In
>> that case, the directive name could be
>>
>> Exclude {
>> Dirs Containing = .no_backup
>> ...
>> }
>
> in that case, I think it would be natural to allow:
>
> Include {
> Dirs Containing = .please_back_me_up
> }
>
> of course the meaning of the directive will be the opposite (the exact
> behaviour when combined with other directives is not obvious, and
> would have to be worked out.)
If such a thing were to be implemented, I think a better name would:
Only Dirs Containing = .please_back_me_up
It is a subtle difference, but is more accurate.
But as Kern as
> for now I'm in favour of just renaming the option to "Exclude Dirs
> Containing".
I agree. I think the exclude is much more useful.
--
Dan Langille
http://langille.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
