Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4

Spam
2004-08-28T00:02:23Z

>>>>>> "Spam" == Spam <spam@tnonline.net> writes:

>> Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
>>>> Why are you guys even considering going to any pain at all to
>>>> distort semantics for the sake of backup? tar is easy, we'll fix it
>>>> and send in a patch.

>>> It's not as easy as you make it out, and not just because there are a
>>> few dozen backup programs that need fixing.

>>> The problem is more fundamental than that. Some of the file streams
>>> proposed need to be backed up, while others are alternative
>>> presentations of the file, which should not be backed up.

Spam>> No, not really. This is a user decision and should be options in
Spam>> the backup software. I don't think it is up to the kernel,
Spam>> filesystem, or the OS in general to decide what information the
Spam>> user want to retain or not.

> Why not just define an attribute named something like "do-not-backup"?
> Then whatever program that generates the thumbnail can automatically add
> the do-not-backup bit, and the backup software knows to ignore it.
> (Obviously, that bit should apply recursively down the subtree.)

This is about the same idea as the archive flag in DOS/Windows
environments. It didn't really work to well IMO. If meta files are
definable by users/application then the backup system could create
its own meta files with the specific information it needs.

~S