Return-Path: X-Original-To: distix@pieni.net Delivered-To: distix@pieni.net Received: from bagpuss.pepperfish.net (bagpuss.pepperfish.net [148.251.8.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pieni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1C72204C4 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 18:17:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from platypus.pepperfish.net (unknown [10.112.100.20]) by bagpuss.pepperfish.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE341296; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:17:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from ip6-localhost ([::1] helo=platypus.pepperfish.net) by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) id 1bTWwq-0001AI-5o; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:17:12 +0100 Received: from inmail0 ([10.112.100.10] helo=mx0.pepperfish.net) by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) id 1bTWwj-00019w-D6 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:17:10 +0100 Received: from pieni.net ([95.142.166.37] ident=postfix) by mx0.pepperfish.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1bTWwh-0004H7-JR for obnam-dev@obnam.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:17:05 +0100 Received: from exolobe3.liw.fi (mobile-access-bcee1b-244.dhcp.inet.fi [188.238.27.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pieni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFB89204C4; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 18:16:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from exolobe3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by exolobe3.liw.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B43C4120B19; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 19:16:55 +0300 (EEST) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 19:16:54 +0300 From: Lars Wirzenius To: Stefano Zacchiroli Message-ID: <20160730161654.GA5795@exolobe3> References: <20160226085104.GA11872@upsilon.cc> <20160724094246.GG5765@exolobe3> <20160724104548.GA32296@upsilon.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160724104548.GA32296@upsilon.cc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Score-int: -26 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-Scanned-By: pepperfish.net, Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:17:05 +0100 X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-2.7 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 PPF_USER_AGENT_MUTT User-Agent: contains Mutt (Mutt isn't a spam tool) -0.5 PPF_USER_AGENT User-Agent: exists 0.5 PPF_MESSAGEID_NODOTS Message-Id contains no dots after the @ 0.2 PPF_REFERENCES_NODOTS References contains no dots after the @ -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-ACL-Warn: message may be spam X-Scan-Signature: ce9efb50043e98c3e6c2276a1343ad7d Cc: obnam-dev@obnam.org Subject: Re: injecting old backup generations X-BeenThere: obnam-dev@obnam.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Obnam development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2067857220659450782==" Mime-version: 1.0 Sender: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org Errors-To: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org --===============2067857220659450782== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9amGYk9869ThD9tj" Content-Disposition: inline --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:45:48PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Hey Lars, thanks for your answer! All looks good to me, but I do have a > question about a specific point you raised: >=20 > On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:42:46PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > I don't see a need to do the reverse hook for restoring. >=20 > Why? >=20 > Aside from the design elegance that round-tripping has in general, > without the converse mapping people would be unable to just restore a > system in place. Obnam already doesn't restoring things in place. It only allows restoring to an empty directory, or a directory that doesn't exist and Obnam creates. For anything else you'll need to use "obnam mount" and cp, rsync, or some other standard file copying tool. Round-tripping can have a design elegance, but I'd really like to have a real use case for why it should be implemented. --=20 Schr=F6dinger's backup hypothesis: the condition of any backup is undefined until a restore is attempted. -- andrewsh --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXnNL2AAoJEGwvphbseiAx8M4QAKCMaKeKsEItCZ/pZHKFuVEN c29XtRXZrPlt7lIdxSYMSAMRdoa9XSKVMmoofxeJUsgQ7luiljOmbr0cbIUNtUU4 utExCMyRTEs6fJslSsVAcxTrifm7J0m4gGG4MrBXmpwGYM/UzJCIZXd5hUXRfFTi +/75kckcPBXVoJjZerUAg6/rwoQR1blFMV0d4HDtLrAgJhUwG/NaDfFuYKXrK5+U ywPxnzkVP/I8TYHpUNGwgK+5IASdhX3N9ypYPXeZrjDPF2o8kqPO8z09xfJ3MnRa 8RAew8W3O5KjNWrTraFAnyh+927fPdL8nmoHL0vPToGVen8DUl2TwkPUTvjIVr5l A5Mb1WB8Tb78CpNJ7QGyWPqmGQKsqVcVFEfNAXp09azjdYJ4FpxGdCXAuZ49MuWd ebJg2jsGxRCbYA6W9vOEcpw7ZfTBQCgjy36UkUCwGXvyZsdFp/6W9QKT2LCqQxN0 j1+6apTYfB1YwCrCYY1YtzZOuaIug2Uq/JEm/70THJcAHzX7ULt5LmSz7rrOmpxC 5UZf61fiNbx8r2B7GjTIcV6l6RhHP2xfmZpHlORPUNV8WPwbcGV/r1hjnALflZBm nu0RSTu+whpNiWDvePCi3ej1BBcz+YR8HrTCXrfgH8gtIcAUwkO+EFqBTQxZKT06 ROU8ZlTfiEusf10GFhsn =z0gp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9amGYk9869ThD9tj-- --===============2067857220659450782== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ obnam-dev mailing list obnam-dev@obnam.org http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org --===============2067857220659450782==--