Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Implementing new features

[Dominic Raferd]

Hi Daniel

I welcome your proposal. The issue about verifying the integrity of 
rdiff-backup repositories is an important one.

We haven't heard (on this mailing list) from the maintainer of 
rdiff-backup, Andrew Ferguson, for nearly a year so I hope he is okay. 
When he introduced the 1.3.0 development branch (4 Jan 09) he wrote:

> Today, I have started a new Development/Unstable branch which will
> include new features, new bug fixes, and yes, new bugs. Remember: in
> the Development branch, there is no guarantee of backwards-
> compatibility. In order to fix some of the more subtle Windows and
> Linux/FAT32 bugs, it looks like it will be necessary to do that every
> so often, which is why I have started this new Development branch.
>
> For now, this branch will not be focused on porting to Python 2.6/3.
> There are plenty of useful features and bug fixes to focus on instead.
> I would prefer to see this new branch become a new stable series
> (1.4.x) on a much shorter time scale than the last one did (which took
> nearly three years!).
>
> Releases from the Development branch will never purposefully destroy
> your backups. (I try to give them at least a basic shakedown.  :-)
> However, if you choose to run them, the expectation is that you will
> keep up with the releases on both your clients and your servers. Also,
> expect that sometimes features will break in unexpected ways. If that
> happens, please submit a bug report.
>
> New in v1.3.0 (2009/01/03)
> ---------------------------
>
> New option: --use-compatible-timestamps, which causes rdiff-backup to
> use - as
> the hour/minute/second separator instead of :. Enabled by default on
> systems
> which require : to be escaped. (Oliver Mulatz)
>
> Allow rdiff-backup to backup files which it cannot read, but can change
> the permissions of. (Andrew Ferguson)
>
> Take start and end times from same system so that the elapsed time
> printed in
> the statistics is not affected by time zone. (Andrew Ferguson)
>
> Properly fix escaping DOS devices and trailing periods and spaces; now
> supports native Windows and Linxu/FAT32. (Andrew Ferguson)

I guess his aim of a short development timetable has not worked out.

Personally I use rdiff-backup for windows (as client) and for linux (as 
server) version 1.2.5 and I would say work from the 1.2.8 stable branch, 
but I am not a python coder and have never tried to use rdiff-backup 1.3.3.

Dominic

On 03/02/2010 21:58, Daniel Miller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning on implementing some new features in rdiff-backup.
> Specifically, I'm going to attempt to implement the features I was
> asking for a while ago in a thread with the subject "*Verify times
> increasing*" (that is, real full-repository verification).
>
> I'd like to know which version of rdiff-backup to implement these new
> features against. Should I develop them against the stable (1.2.8) or
> should I develop them against the development version in CVS? (aside:
> are we really still using CVS??? ever heard of git?)
>
> I'm going to use the features I implement in a production environment,
> so I need whatever I end up with to be stable. Which brings up the
> question: How stable is the development branch? Is it stable enough to
> use in a production environment?
>
> Thanks, Daniel