On Monday 06 October 2008 10:42:39 Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> 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
> }
Unfortunately, a "Dirs Containing" within an Include section is not possible.
Without going into all the details, simply try to imagine an algorithm to
implement -- not possible, IMO.
>
> 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".
For the moment, that is what I am planning, but I am still open to more
suggestions.
Best regards,
Kern
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
