Re: [Duplicity-talk] Incremental Backups always against the last full snapshot

[Daniel Weigl]

Hello ede,

> > Is there a technical reason which might block this idea?
> duplicity currently assumes that incrementals are based on the backup  
> set before the incremental, hence these "full-incrementals" would have  
> to be tagged for duplicity to detect that they are based on the full set.

I see two options:
 a) Maybe call them "diff" (as Eliot Moss suggested)
 b) Leave the filename as it is, just relay on the option given to  
duplicity (so the user must pass it for all action - backuping, restore...  
just like "--no-encryption")

"a" would be more robust and userfriendly, while "b" easier to implement  
(i guess)

> but generally speaking, no show stopper here.
Nice. Maybe ill watch into it, would love to contribute a bit...


> PS: what is this in your signature below?
"Execute" it, than youll see :)  (brainf*ck)

Daniel


> > ++++++++[-<++++>>++++>+<<]>>++>++<<<<[- [->+<]>[->.<<+>]>>>[-[->+<]+>[<+
> > +++++++[->++++++<] Daniel       >-.-[-<++>]<.[-]]++<[->-<]++>[<->+++++++
> [->++++<]>..[-]<]>>]+<<<[-[->+<]+>[-<+>>>-[->+<]++>[-<->]<<<]<<<<]>>.<<<]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk


--
> ++++++++[-<++++>>++++>+<<]>>++>++<<<<[- [->+<]>[->.<<+>]>>>[-[->+<]+>[<+
> +++++++[->++++++<] Daniel WEIGL >-.-[-<++>]<.[-]]++<[->-<]++>[<->+++++++
[->++++<]>..[-]<]>>]+<<<[-[->+<]+>[-<+>>>-[->+<]++>[-<->]<<<]<<<<]>>.<<<]