Re: Add backup option to convert-ly (Issue 3572) (issue 14040043)

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; 
<address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Add backup option to convert-ly (Issue 3572) (issue 14040043)



> > > With the current code, if there is no file~, the backup file will
> always
> > > (even in the presence of -n) be called file~, but file~ is much more
> > > prone to overwriting accidentally than file.~1~ not least of all by
> > > convert-ly (when called without -n option at a later point of time)
> > > itself.
>
> > Well, that's the whole point of this patch.  Without this new code,
> the
> > backup is always over-written.  With it, using the -b option prevents
> > over-writing.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> If I have one particularly important revision and no previous backup
> file, and I very much want to preserve the particularly important
> revision, let's assume that I do
>
> convert-ly -edn file.ly

I'm really confused here.  -n is the option for no-version.  How is this 
related to backup?

> once, and do future calls to convert-ly only via
>
> convert-ly -ed file.ly
>
> Does that mean that the important revision will be preserved?  No, it
> will get overwritten by the future calls of convert-ly -ed because when
> _no_ previous backup file is present, the first "numbered" backup will
> be named "file.ly~" rather than "file.ly.~1~".
>
> And I think that's a mistake.
>
> And while we are at it: the loop has the condition
>  while os.path.exists(back_up) and os.path.isfile(back_up):
> for skipping over existing files.  The second part of the condition is
> nonsensical since it means that a name will be used for backing up even
> if it is already taken by a directory or fifo or socket.
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/14040043/

I presume Eluze put it in for a specific reason which I don't know.  Eluze?

--
Phil Holmes