On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:50:02 +0100, Gary Martin
<garycmartin(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 14:02, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu(a)sugarlabs.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:57, Bernie Innocenti <bernie(a)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.