bobs-devel

[Bobs-devel] restore_ssh - patch

[Jochen M. <j.m...@om...>]

Hi Joe,

well I had a look through the restore_rsync_ssh patch, and I had some
thoughts I wanted to share with you.
(Actually I did not get it really running)

==
The method itself and the main implementation is great
==

But.
1. In this patch this restore method only works in conjunction with the
backup method "rsync_ssh"

2. It is not real rsync_ssh, but only uses the data and uses sftp
itself.


So there a 2 things I do think about.

1 -> Might be misleading, because you can choose it as restore method.
     also when you choose something else as 
   
2 -> It might be better, when it has its own data and will be pronounced
     sftp as well (rather than rsync_ssh)

Unfortunately I do not have the time at present to give it the right 
go. 
The question is whether to launch it this way in the release or not.

The way it is will in my opinion lead to a lot misunderstanding and
that would be no good for the image of this masterpiece of software.

Cheers

Jochen 

   

-- 
omatix internet services
omatix solutions & trainings
omatix onlineverlag

Jochen Metzger
j.m...@om...

Telefon +49(30) 78709298
Fax     +49(30) 78709296

Re: [Bobs-devel] restore_ssh - patch

[Joe Z. <jz...@co...>]

Jochen Metzger wrote:

>Hi Joe,
>
>well I had a look through the restore_rsync_ssh patch, and I had some
>thoughts I wanted to share with you.
>(Actually I did not get it really running)
>
>==
>The method itself and the main implementation is great
>==
>
>But.
>1. In this patch this restore method only works in conjunction with the
>backup method "rsync_ssh"
>
>2. It is not real rsync_ssh, but only uses the data and uses sftp
>itself.
>
>
>So there a 2 things I do think about.
>
>1 -> Might be misleading, because you can choose it as restore method.
>     also when you choose something else as 
>   
>2 -> It might be better, when it has its own data and will be pronounced
>     sftp as well (rather than rsync_ssh)
>
>Unfortunately I do not have the time at present to give it the right 
>go. 
>The question is whether to launch it this way in the release or not.
>
>The way it is will in my opinion lead to a lot misunderstanding and
>that would be no good for the image of this masterpiece of software.
>
>Cheers
>
>Jochen 
>
>   
>
Are we talking about Rene's rsync_restore.patch he posted 12-29-2003? 
That was a pretty large patch. I need to take a long look at it and try 
it out before I can comment on it.

Joe

Re: [Bobs-devel] restore_ssh - patch

[Jochen M. <j.m...@om...>]

Am Son, den 04.01.2004 schrieb Joe Zacky um 21:51:


> >
> >   
> >
> Are we talking about Rene's rsync_restore.patch he posted 12-29-2003? 
> That was a pretty large patch. I need to take a long look at it and try 
> it out before I can comment on it.
> 
Yes indeed, that was what I meant..

Cheers

Jochen 

Re: [Bobs-devel] restore_ssh - patch

[Rene R. <re...@gr...>]

Hi

I'm back on my feet again so I can do a little coding.

> 1. In this patch this restore method only works in conjunction with the
> backup method "rsync_ssh"
>
> 2. It is not real rsync_ssh, but only uses the data and uses sftp
> itself.
>
>
> So there a 2 things I do think about.
>
> 1 -> Might be misleading, because you can choose it as restore method.
>      also when you choose something else as
>
> 2 -> It might be better, when it has its own data and will be pronounce=
d
>      sftp as well (rather than rsync_ssh)
>


Although the rsync_ssh restore method uses sftp for restoring files, the
data the administrator has to enter is the same as for the rsync_ssh
backup method.

I think it makes a little sense but I'm not religious about it. If you an=
d
Joe both think it would make more sense to call it "sftp" and have
seperate settings for "sftp" that works for me.

If not we can just apply it as is and change it whenever the need arises.


Cheers

Rene

Re: [Bobs-devel] restore_ssh - patch

[Jochen M. <ml...@om...>]

Hi Rene,

fine that you have come on your feet again. ;o)

Although the rsync_ssh restore method uses sftp for restoring files, the
> data the administrator has to enter is the same as for the rsync_ssh
> backup method.
> 
> I think it makes a little sense but I'm not religious about it. If you and
> Joe both think it would make more sense to call it "sftp" and have
> seperate settings for "sftp" that works for me.
> 
> If not we can just apply it as is and change it whenever the need arises.
> 

as long as the data is the same it makes sense to keep it this way.
In my opinion, there's another obstacle at present.

One could use another method for backupping
and use rsync_ssh as restoring method and the data necessary will
be missing. This seems to be misleading ...

What do you think about it, or maybe I am on the wrong track.


Cheers

Jochen