Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the best suggestion that I have seen for the name is (at
> least in the current context):
>
> Exclude Dirs Containing = .no_backup
>
> That seems to me to be a very good name.
I agree.
> Concerning the placement of the directive: I think it is worth
> examining if we can easily move it to the Exclude { } section. In
> that case, the directive name could be
>
> Exclude {
> Dirs Containing = .no_backup
> ...
> }
in that case, I think it would be natural to allow:
Include {
Dirs Containing = .please_back_me_up
}
of course the meaning of the directive will be the opposite (the exact
behaviour when combined with other directives is not obvious, and
would have to be worked out.)
for now I'm in favour of just renaming the option to "Exclude Dirs
Containing".
--
regards, | Redpill _
Kjetil T. Homme | Linpro (_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
