On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>> I'd prefer that there be a file-storage backup solution out of the box.
>> repozo is the logical choice. It sounds like it needs some love though.
>> This isn't something I'd likely get to soon.
> I'm not sure how much love repozo needs. It works, and it won't need
> changing until FileStorage's format changes, which I don't see happening
> any time soon.
For what it's worth, I've dealt with broken / unloved / mildly-out-of-date ZODB
scripts by making a new package that my little company uses internally. It
allowed me to get some useful tools available again, and was independent from
any ZODB release cycle. Now I have additional scripts that get generated by my
ZODB-related buildouts with names like 'fsdumpx'.
You could always explore this option, and even do it better than me by sharing
with the community. The ZODB 'scripts' are a wild handful of relics, some
useful, some not, some just woefully out of date. It would be helpful to have
an independent project that provided new or fixed tools that were maintained,
were better command-line citizens, had consistent command line options, etc.
There's no reason for such a project to be tied to the longer tail of the ZODB
So if 'repozo' needs love, even if it's simple love, I would recommend that
someone make a 'z3c.zodbtools' or 'z3c.repozo' or 'z3c.fsbackup' project. Hell,
I'll look at the package I've made and see if I can do something along those
lines as a starting/example point. (I believe my zodbtools package has some
dependencies on a couple of internal packages that can not be shared, but I
could scrub those uses out).
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org