I'm not convinced it should be changed. I like the fact that I can "exit without saving" and not have any data disrupted. OTOH, I can understand that people DO want to be able to have "interim saves" in case of a crash, in which case the user should probably be prompted whether to use the 'last-saved' or 'auto-saved' data.
-derek [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 09:51:37AM -0800, W Pennington was heard to remark: > > GnuCash 1.6.6 > > > > Is there a feature for saving changes every ___ minutes? > > Not currently. > > > If not, is there an appropriate forum for feature requests? > > gnucash-devel mailing list is better. > > --------- > I suppose the time has come for something like this. I just implemented > something like this for GnoTime (gttr.sourceforge.net) > > It saves once a minute for the first 4 minutes, then once every 4 > minutes for the first 16 minutes, then once every 16 minutes for > the first 64 minutes, etc., forever. There is nothing to adjust, > there is nothing to configure, and the old copies are pruned > automatically. Because of the logarithmic distribution, it means that > even if you run for years, you won't have more than 20 or so backup > copies (viz. every 4 months for the first 16 months, etc). > > The algorithm seems safe: the code never actually deletes files, > it only renames them: The pruning works by copying a newer file on top > of an older file. Thus, even if the app goes totally wacko, it can't > wack much: there's no chance of an 'rm *' happening by accident. > > I think something like this would defacto server the (vast?) majority > of GnuCash users. What I don't know is if there is anybody who thinks > the current scheme is better? > > BTW the current scheme was designed so that it did the following: > a) Avoid accidental 'rm -r' by never actually rm'ing > b) backup filename has datestamp, pid and ipaddr in it, to avoid > accidental over-write by same user, by other users logged onto > same machine, or same/other users working over NFS. > > (By contrast, the new proposed scheme intentionally over-writes > as a means of pruning back old copies.) > c) Saves are done by user, so that if user really screws something up > (e.g. deleting an account tree) they can get out of it by not saving. > > > So -- should the old scheme be replaced by the new scheme? > > --linas > > > -- > pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933 > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
