1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
Return-Path: <obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org>
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 BE1C122945
for <distix@pieni.net>; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:46:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from platypus.pepperfish.net (unknown [10.112.100.20])
by bagpuss.pepperfish.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70223FD4;
Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:46:11 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ip6-localhost ([::1] helo=platypus.pepperfish.net)
by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian))
id 1bRGvD-0005pC-Af; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:46:11 +0100
Received: from inmail0 ([10.112.100.10] helo=mx0.pepperfish.net)
by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian))
id 1bRGvC-0005ow-5i
for <obnam-dev@obnam.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:46:10 +0100
Received: from upsilon.cc ([178.32.142.91])
by mx0.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <zack@upsilon.cc>) id 1bRGvA-0000bu-3W
for obnam-dev@obnam.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:46:10 +0100
Received: from timira.takhisis.invalid (bau75-1-78-194-69-54.fbxo.proxad.net
[78.194.69.54]) by upsilon.cc (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB590101CB;
Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:45:48 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=upsilon.cc; s=mail;
t=1469357148; bh=Ku1lKFwCEi5AoLcPHALzWpYG7oy69xCcYCbUNPg4BxU=;
h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
b=UR5RAFO2YkaRtlEZ9rdsitr4sFv4iWCRxyttF3QrmMYybbKo+0Az7o9nwPuwqIOzr
AstC0nElLIoZUzTiLk5BjRY0odOGF2F6B4KJ3N+8TGX+Fqt7KmGJsSIhg/jU7+vM6I
CZu+kL+vJ718L+pfuSw5t4vgIblf/9MkWDQXtGFs=
Received: by timira.takhisis.invalid (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 453A36052B; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:45:48 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:45:48 +0200
From: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@upsilon.cc>
To: Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi>
Message-ID: <20160724104548.GA32296@upsilon.cc>
References: <20160226085104.GA11872@upsilon.cc>
<20160724094246.GG5765@exolobe3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20160724094246.GG5765@exolobe3>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
X-Spam-Score: -4.4
X-Spam-Score-int: -43
X-Spam-Bar: ----
X-Scanned-By: pepperfish.net, Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:46:10 +0100
X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-4.4 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
0.2 PPF_INREPLYTO_NODOTS In-Reply-To contains no dots after the @
0.2 PPF_REFERENCES_NODOTS References contains no dots after the @
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-1.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-ACL-Warn: message may be spam
X-Scan-Signature: 0e65bd97f891e744da7dd2373f601daa
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 <obnam-dev-obnam.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org>,
<mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/obnam-dev-obnam.org>
List-Post: <mailto:obnam-dev@obnam.org>
List-Help: <mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org>,
<mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org
Errors-To: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org
Hey Lars, thanks for your answer! All looks good to me, but I do have a
question about a specific point you raised:
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.
Why?
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. Not that one *usually* does that, but even if you
restore in a temp dir having the content of that dir being isomorphic to
the file-system part it comes from is really handy.
Same goes for timestamps, with the added disadvantage that they would be
even more difficult to fix upon restore.
It is true that with round-tripping you'll go down the rabbit hole of
whether you offer a mangling API that *guarantees* round-tripping (which
would be probably awkward) or just expect users to do that themselves
(and then allow users to shoot themselves in the foot). But round
tripping still seems to me the obvious right way to go here. What am I
missing? Maybe some intrinsic difficulty related to how obnam works
internally?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
_______________________________________________
obnam-dev mailing list
obnam-dev@obnam.org
http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org
|
