[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 28 Jan 2007 14:51:37 -0800, > "Barton C Massey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If the consensus among dirvish developers is that this is >> desirable behavior, I guess I'll work around it, at least >> for now. Is this behavior really what folks want? > > Short answer: No. > > Long answer: I also stumbled upon this behaviour, We have logical > volumes for every vault and similar issues. We also tried once to have a > "current" directory --bind mounted to the last image's tree in a vault. > If someone / something now created a file or directory summary in the > backed up filesystem, dirvish-expire loses.
Did I understand this correctly? You had your backups publically mounted read-write for normal users? That sounds like a really bad idea. I certainly wouldn't see the need for any changes to dirvish intended to protect users from the results of that kind of adventure. Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
