On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:50:02 +0100, Gary Martin garycmartin@googlemail.com wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 14:02, Tomeu Vizoso tomeu@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:57, Bernie Innocenti bernie@codewiz.org wrote:
== New Features ==
sugar/backup-0001-Volumes-Backup-and-Restore.patch sugar/backup-0002-Journal-XS-backup-and-restore.patch
There are concerns about restore deleting new entries since the last backup. I agree, but since nobody seems to have the time to implement and test a more sophisticated procedure, at this time this is the best restore feature we have for Sugar.
Do we know any other deployment willing to deploy this?
If we decide to merge it, I think it should be disabled by default and have a gconf setting, because knowingly shipping a feature that causes data loss may not be a good idea.
Sounds fair. I was going to suggest making sure there was at least a second user action needed after hitting a backup or restore button (I skimmed through the patch code but couldn't see a conformation warning step). A warning notification with Cancel/Backup, and Cancel/Restore
could
help avoid some accidents.
Would be very useful if you could also reply this comments on the proper Backup Restore topic. :) That is why the patch was sent to the mailing list in the first time, for people to test, read the code and give their opinions.