>>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 07:37:36 +0200, Kern Sibbald said: > > 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?
Putting it outside the Include option and making it truely apply to the whole fileset would at least make it easier to define what it does. > 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. I think the fileset syntax needs a complete overhaul. The two main problems are that it tries to do too many things simultaneously (setting options and well as controlling the tree walk) and also that it defines a flat set of rules for something that is, by nature, a tree. __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-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
