[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]    [<<]Thread[>>]

Number   :  3253
Date     :  2002-12-12
Author   :  Kan Yabumoto
Subject  :  Re: Preserving Generation Backups
Size(KB) :  1



Falcon has a very good point. I like that.

> I think this whole discussion is mixing things up. Backups
> are backups, and should not be making decisions about obsolete
> files to discard. I have many files dated 1989 or earlier,
> and no desire to lose them.
>
> Pruning the filesystem is an entirely different operation, and
> should insist on close supervision. After doing such and
> making an error the backup is available to correct the error,
> at least until the backup is altered.

When you ask XXCOPY to do too much in one breath, XXCOPY will
easily be overloaded and *ALL* users will suffer. I have
already been really alarmed by the weight of the whole package
right now. Every time I get a suggestion, my first instinct
that occur to me is

"How can I justify not to accept the new idea?"

A new scheme need to be really compelling to a large number
of users. Even though the presence most features do not
hurt old XXCOPY-based scripts and the user may ignore new
features, added documentations will be a burden to all,
especially for new users. At least this will be true until
we come up with a decent help system (.CHM file) and
GUI-based self-help (windows program that helps you look-up
features in XXCOPY, and possibly synthesize one-line batch
file for convenience).

Speaking about pruning a directory, XXCOPY is certainly
a powerful tool to use. But, I will concentrate in
providing a versatile building block of multi-line batch
file script. Often times, a few-line batch script is
much better, clean, and easy-to-understand than trying
to make everything in one-line XXCOPY operation.

Let me expand this subject a bit further in my next message.

Kan Yabumoto



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.