Re: [Duplicity-talk] Unable to restore a recent version

[Kenneth Loafman]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Nate Eldredge <address@hidden> wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Kenneth Loafman wrote:

I've been following the discussion.  Yes, it could do that, but it would be
a much slower process.

...Ken

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:09 AM, <address@hidden> wrote:

On 02.06.2011 00:18, Jarno Rantanen wrote:

I don't suppose there's any magic switch that would make Duplicity check

the

(hash of the) actual contents of each file instead of its timestamps..?

:)

If not, $ touch *.JPG to the rescue.

not that i know of. All I know it saves the modtime and checks it on the
next run and then uses rsync lib to detect which parts of the file have
changed.

But it should be trivial to implement this if you wanted, right?  Just remove the modtime test.  It looks like this is in path.py, in ROPath:__eq__ and compare_verbose.

Yes, it would be mostly trivial, but to keep from harming performance, such as it is, we'd need to implement this as an optional check.

All UNIX backup programs use modtime to check for changes, so I'm not sure this would be widely used.  In my opinion, the program that modified the modtime should  get a bug report.  That's just not the way things are done in the real world.

...Ken