> I'm a big fan of the second approach ... I think it's fine to make those
> assumptions.
I was leaning towards approach (2) as well, so that all sounds good to me.
I'd have to think a little more about what defaults make most sense
for the non-incremental use case before I could weigh in intell
Hey Jason, thanks for the thorough investigation here.
I'm a big fan of the second approach, but in this case I think we'd really
only need 1 option: *incremental: true/false*
If the user specifies an incremental backup, we know that:
- They do not want a unique name
- The data already the
Hey all,
I've been getting familiar in the last week or two with our new
operator, and noticed that the way its backups work will miss out on
the "incremental" efficiency improvements added recently as a part of
SIP-12. For backups to be done incrementally, an ongoing backup has
to be able to "se
