hi Jeffrey, i really acknowledge Craig's work and love the results of his work.
As somebody already mentioned somewhere else - maybe it's better to re-think current implementations before they are hardcoded :) So my question for the dev-list: Do you know about users who want the penalty of a longer "first initial backup"? It is meant for 4.0 not for 3.x! Trying to check if some dev is already playing around with your script... It's always easy to ask users for functions they might find useful - but asking on [dev] means (maybe) getting aproval if it even is possible :) Just thinking of a merge of some parts of your scripts with [MAIN] To have a "fully featured product" instead of so many useful - but still custom - scripts should even be easier for Craig as well as for end-users And yes, like your scripts too Jeffrey :) Greetings Mike Am 23.03.2011 um 21:21 schrieb Jeffrey J. Kosowsky: > Fresel Michal - hi competence e.U. wrote at about 20:54:01 +0100 on > Wednesday, March 23, 2011: >> hi Jeffrey, >> >>> If checksum caching is on then the checksum is stored at the end of >>> the compressed file. So the file does *not* need to be decompressed. >>> Technically, the checksum is only added to the file the 2nd time the >>> file is encountered which I imagine is probably due to the fact that >>> the native rsync algorithm only transmits the block and full file >>> checksums when the file already exists (otherwise perhaps only the >>> full file checksum is transmitted) >> >> as i like your BackupPC_digestVerify with the "-a Add rsync digests if >> missing" ... >> >> what about to give the user the abillity to auto-create these caches on the >> first run (meaning that part of your script to be included in main)? >> Maybe some users want the penalty of a longer "first initial backup"? >> >> some kind of checkbox "autocreate checksums on new files" (defaults to no) >> + FAQ-Entry: - this function will create checksums on first creation and not >> as usual on the 2rd sync >> ??? >> > > I'm not sure of the purpose of this discussion. Craig is rightly > devoting his energies to 4.0. The discussion here seems to be about > adding new capabilities to 3.x. Other than bug fixes, I'm not sure you > will get much traction around adding new functionality to 3.x no > matter how simple and/or beneficial it may be. > > In part, that is why I have focused on writing my own independent > routines to add functionality that I need. But I have stayed away from > changing the core 3.x code and functionality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar _______________________________________________ BackupPC-devel mailing list BackupPC-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
