On Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:05:39 PM UTC+7, Edward K. Ream wrote: It's hard to comment on complex proposals such as yours. I am not > likely ever to implement any such proposal, and certainly not this > calendar year. > I'm sorry if I implied I was asking for anything but information and advice, much less for any changes in Leo's functionality; I'm honestly just trying to figure out how to reconcile what I'm trying to do with my understanding of the various facilities Leo offers.
The backup issue isn't so important at this point compared to my furthering that understanding, and I'm collecting detailed notes and hope to take advantage of my current noob POV to add relevant howto's to Leo's docs one day. To generalize my scenario further, only using @shadow or @nosent, all data is in either "A" or "B" trees. The "master" tree "A" - is the only one containing @shadow files - there are no clones shared between them - only those files will be edited externally All other locations "B" - contain only @nosent files - all changes to their content take place within Leo I believe the above guarantees that for any given node, only one location is subject to two-way read/writing at all; this SOP seems in fact **more** verifiable and secure than the "only use @all in B" rule. I'm not asking for any blanket assurances, I'm happy to take full responsibility, but does this seem sound in principle? Or if not from "you Edward" on this specific question, any feedback from "you anyone" would be greatly appreciated. I've been doing some testing, admittedly not exhaustive, but so far things seem OK. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/leo-editor/-/GKaO2Q6UDCMJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
