On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Sounds interesting. However, sounds like "new version" is an understatement > and what you've got is an entirely new project. Nothing wrong with that, but > I think you might have more success thinking about it that way.
I thought about that too. However, I'm calling it a new implementation since that's really what it is. To my knowledge the new features I have implemented/planned do not make my tool an entirely new project. They are complimentary to the current features in rdiff-backup. I am retaining the two main characteristics of rdiff-backup: a full mirror of the most recent backup, and increment-forever using the rsync algorithm for older revisions. I'm tentatively calling my "new version" rdiff-backup 2.0, although I would be hesitant to formally name it that before I have made a release. > Two questions: > > 1) are you planning to better handle renamed files? That's killin' me. I have thought about this, and I don't think it would be too hard to implement this using inode tracking. However, it might incur more memory overhead. Input is welcome. > 2) Are you aware of Duplicity? <http://duplicity.nongnu.org/> I looked at it briefly, although I can't remember anymore why I decided against it in favor of rdiff-backup. Possibly the current mirror? ~ Daniel _______________________________________________ rdiff-backup-users mailing list at [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
