Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup

[Mauro Condarelli]

Thanks Lars,

comments below.


Il 16/05/2016 23:11, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting ha scritto:
> On 16/05/16 17:57, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
>
>>> So, I feel that we would like to enforce some peer review. Perhaps the
>>> solution is to require 2 maintainers to approve a patch, but I fear that
>>> increases the workload/makes the process more fragile.
>> If You want peer-review we could move to the "patchwork" infrastructure, and 
>> retain
>> the ML as primary mean, but even there I'm not aware of any way to enforce 
>> multiple
>> approval, it just makes it possible and traceable.
> It is not possible to *enforce* it on GitHub, but it is possible to have
> it as a policy that one committer should comment LGTM before another
> committer can merge the PR.
Nice.
I am not familiar with github policy setup.
How is that done?

> (Looks Good To Me)
> (Pull Request)
LGTM! ;)
Can You set it up for us?
TiA


... or perhaps You mean we should "kindly ask" to all committers to wait for at 
least one
LGTM review before committing?
I see no way to insert this in workflow.
This way committers could relay on LGTM tags even if they are not able / have 
not the time
to dig into details of specific patches.
Uhm..."reviewers" and "committers" could also be separate teams (possibly 
overlapping)

> We use this policy at my office and it works quite well.
Can You elaborate, please?
This sounds very interesting.

> I have noticed that Docker uses that policy as well. Examples:
> https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22757
> https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22698
> https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22574
>
> Also, note the "Signed-off-by".
Noted, thanks.

Regards
Mauro

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Issues for future backuppc activities

[Rick L]

Very true and proves a genuine interest is still more than alive.

On a second note, I'll simply throw this in for now, I'm no programmer, 
but I do have sysadmin skills, some front end design ability, and some 
free time here and again. Jack of all master of none.

It's worth mentioning for the record, without trying to clog up the 
feed, I understand if were using it, we should all see what we can do to 
facilitate it's future.

Thanks, Rick L

On 05/16/2016 01:20 PM, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> 

> Given the flow of "issues" coming into github it seems we indeed have 
> something to fix.
>> Juergen
> Regards
> Mauro
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting]

On 16/05/16 20:39, Norm Legare wrote:
> Where/when/who/how does the regression testing get done for this project?

We have no CI set up yet. Maybe Travis could work. I'm not sure we even
have a test suite. We should work on that, definitely.

-- 
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup

[Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting]

On 16/05/16 17:57, Mauro Condarelli wrote:

>> So, I feel that we would like to enforce some peer review. Perhaps the
>> solution is to require 2 maintainers to approve a patch, but I fear that
>> increases the workload/makes the process more fragile.
>
> If You want peer-review we could move to the "patchwork" infrastructure, and 
> retain
> the ML as primary mean, but even there I'm not aware of any way to enforce 
> multiple
> approval, it just makes it possible and traceable.

It is not possible to *enforce* it on GitHub, but it is possible to have
it as a policy that one committer should comment LGTM before another
committer can merge the PR.

(Looks Good To Me)
(Pull Request)

We use this policy at my office and it works quite well.

I have noticed that Docker uses that policy as well. Examples:
https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22757
https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22698
https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22574

Also, note the "Signed-off-by".

-- 
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom]

On 05/16 07:41 , Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> Please see:https://danielmiessler.com/study/git/ 

That's a really good link. Thank you.

-- 
Carl Soderstrom
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Issues for future backuppc activities

[Mauro Condarelli]

Thanks Alexander,
comments below.

Il 16/05/2016 20:37, Alexander Moisseev ha scritto:
> On 16.05.16 20:20, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
>> I would add "packaging" as today it's rather hard to install in non-standard 
>> places.
> As FreeBSD sysutils/backuppc port maintainer I can say one of the first thing 
> that should be done is to split up configure.pl in two parts: installation 
> script and configuration/update script.
> It's practically impossible to create pre-built package with monolithic 
> configure.pl script, and I didn't find a way to do that. Finally I managed to 
> solve that problem applying awful patch to configure.pl that removed 
> installation part from it.
Sounds very reasonable.
Can You create an issue on github, please?
We need to capture all these issues even if we aren't in position to respond to 
them at first release.
Would You be interested in working to provide a patch?
Should we ask for debian maintainer input and/or support?
This could be handled together with production of a Docker Container.
IMHO discussion on specifics should be done directly on the github issue.

Thanks
Mauro

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Norm Legare]

It sounds like a pull request is the same as checking out a file, but sort 
of in reverse.  The request is granted by an admin and that alerts others 
that this file is being worked on and for whatever reason.  This also allows 
for a discussion on the merits of this work if so desired.  Then after the 
work is completed, the admin verifies the changes and makes them official.

Where/when/who/how does the regression testing get done for this project?

-Original Message- 
From: Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 1:58 PM
To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

Norm Legare wrote:

> Can I assume that github is very similar to Clearcase?

Git is not equal to Github, as Github is a web site that is hosting
projects using Git, while Git is the actual version control system.

I guess one of the biggest differences with clearcase is that git is a
distributed version control system, while clearcase is a client-server
model (centralized). Plus, it's open source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control#Distributed_vs._centralized

Also, Github encourages Pull Requests workflow, which I don't believe
clearcase supports. Although I have never used clearcase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control#Pull_requests

-- 
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Issues for future backuppc activities

[Alexander Moisseev]

On 16.05.16 20:20, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> I would add "packaging" as today it's rather hard to install in non-standard 
> places.
As FreeBSD sysutils/backuppc port maintainer I can say one of the first thing 
that should be done is to split up configure.pl in two parts: installation 
script and configuration/update script.
It's practically impossible to create pre-built package with monolithic 
configure.pl script, and I didn't find a way to do that. Finally I managed to 
solve that problem applying awful patch to configure.pl that removed 
installation part from it.



--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Norm Legare]

I ask this because if it was so, my Clearcase knowledge would be of some use 
to this effort.  Of course, Clearcase may be a thing of the past and my 
knowledge is from 15 years ago.

-Original Message- 
From: Mauro Condarelli
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 1:41 PM
To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

Hi Norm,
comments inline.

Il 16/05/2016 18:46, Norm Legare ha scritto:
> Can I assume that github is very similar to Clearcase?
>
Not really.
Github is built around git, which is philosophically different from 
Clearcase, even if there are some similarities.

Please see:https://danielmiessler.com/study/git/ or directly plunge into 
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting]

Norm Legare wrote:

> Can I assume that github is very similar to Clearcase?

Git is not equal to Github, as Github is a web site that is hosting
projects using Git, while Git is the actual version control system.

I guess one of the biggest differences with clearcase is that git is a
distributed version control system, while clearcase is a client-server
model (centralized). Plus, it's open source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control#Distributed_vs._centralized

Also, Github encourages Pull Requests workflow, which I don't believe
clearcase supports. Although I have never used clearcase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control#Pull_requests

-- 
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Fatal Error during Samba backup

[Mauro Condarelli]

I suspect this https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/issues/14 is relevant.

Can You check, please?

Regards

Mauro


Il 16/05/2016 18:22, David Williams ha scritto:
> Hi,
> I am still getting this issue daily.  Can anyone provide any ideas as to what 
> is happening or how I can hunt down the exact error?
> Regards,
> --
> */Dave Williams /*
> Senior Oracle MDM & Financials Consultant
> -- Original Message --
> From: "David Williams"  >
> To: "backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net" 
>  >
> Sent: 5/13/2016 12:23:20
> Subject: [BackupPC-users] Fatal Error during Samba backup
>> Having some issues trying to backup a Samba share and trying to determine 
>> just what exactly the error is.  From what I can see from the error log it 
>> has gotten all the way to the end of this particular share and then the 
>> error message below, without too much detail that I can see.
>> The command being executed is:
>> /usr/bin/smbclient dwlaptop\\DTW-Consulting -I 192.168.15.82 -U 
>> dwilliams -E -d 1 -c tarmode\ full -Tc
>> The end of the error log file:
>> tarExtract: Done: 0 errors, 11777 filesExist, 15089174042 sizeExist, 
>> 12314421307 sizeExistComp, 11811 filesTotal, 15233442674 sizeTotal
>> Got fatal error during xfer (No files dumped for share DTW-Consulting)
>> Backup aborted (No files dumped for share DTW-Consulting
>> Regards,
>> --
>> */Dave Williams /*
>> Senior Oracle MDM & Financials Consultant
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
>
>
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/



--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Mauro Condarelli]

Hi Norm,
comments inline.

Il 16/05/2016 18:46, Norm Legare ha scritto:
> Can I assume that github is very similar to Clearcase?
>
Not really.
Github is built around git, which is philosophically different from Clearcase, 
even if there are some similarities.

Please see:https://danielmiessler.com/study/git/ or directly plunge into 
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

[BackupPC-users] Contributors

[Mauro Condarelli]

Hi,
I am Mauro Condarelli, I am a freelance regularly involved in architecting and 
implementing embedded systems.
I have a strong background in C/C++ and java, but I can program in several 
other languages including Perl.
I also have experience as project leader for medium sized development teams.
I also have a rather long Linux acquaintance.
My time allowance for this project is limited, more or less concentrated in the 
week-ends. I am doing an effort
to get this started, but I won't be able to keep this level of involvement.

Regards
Mauro

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Norm Legare]

Can I assume that github is very similar to Clearcase?

From: Kris Lou
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 12:32 PM
To: General list for user discussion, questions and support
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

I'm glad to see this get off the ground -- with no disrespect to the great work 
that Craig has done over the years.

Just a couple more suggestions (and I'm sure this list will grow as the project 
does):

* It might be worth contacting and inviting the individual maintainers of the 
primary distributions - EPEL/Debian/et al.  IIRC, most of them are on this 
list.  But I'll just echo what most of has already been said in that we prefer 
to install via package managers rather than via tarball.
* It might be good to restore/convert the old website (via github), which had a 
TON of useful scripts and other bits which are still applicable to v.3.x.



Kris Lou
k...@themusiclink.net

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom  
wrote:

  On 05/16 10:50 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
  > I would definitely suggest that the lack of FTP backup support in v4 is
  > a non-issue.

  I have to agree. After 10+ years of using BPC I've not found many situations
  where it would be really useful. Better to get other functionality out
  sooner. As Voltaire said and Kalashnikov exemplified, "the perfect is the
  enemy of the good".

  --
  Carl Soderstrom
  Systems Administrator
  Real-Time Enterprises
  www.real-time.com


  --
  Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
  bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
  restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
  apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
  https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
  ___
  BackupPC-users mailing list
  BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
  List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
  Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
  Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/





--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j



___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Issues for future backuppc activities

[Mauro Condarelli]

Thanks Juergen,
Cmments inline.

Il 16/05/2016 17:50, Juergen Harms ha scritto:
> Opening a new Subject to keep this discussion somewhat readable. Some
> replies to / and adding to the list of Mauros points:
>
> - have me join and participate in git management activities: why not? I
> have been intrigued by my ignorance on GIT - learning is always a
> challenge if there are people ready to reply to questions
That's what keeps You young  ;)

> - looking into divergence between V4 and V3x
> I had also arrived at this kind of topic, but from a slightly different
> side: draft a short evaluation paper on the state of V3x and V4 - to
> have a solid base for what we are talking about and for deciding actions
> and priorities - without that, email discussion might become dispersive.
> I will pick this up. Immediate conclusion: writing a clever perl
> programme is one thing - but not a all the same as understanding a
> clever perl programme written by somebody else and having a different
> background. Please be patient.
No need to hurry.
Lars already has everything as a branch.
Forking, if at all necessary, can be done later from the branch.

> - first naive question: what does that mean "to open "issues" on
> backuppc/backuppc"? one of my black holes.
"Issues" are the way github handles trouble tickets; that is on the assumption 
a missing
issue or a wish can be considered as a "bug" and thus treated in the same way.
You need to:
- register on github
- go to https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc
- click on "Issues" tab
 From there it should be clear, otherwise feel free to ask.

> Something perfectly different: how about checking how well different
> domains of competence are covered by the people already on board - and
> of themes where we are perfectly blank? We talked about programming
> skills and software management. What other domains are essential?
> checking, but also have a list of people whose arm to twist if a problem
> pops up on some particular issue. How about
> - web front (or is it back?)-end for the user interface
> - interface with apache and co
> - platform (OS) specific issues - is cygwin part of this topic?
> - components (ssh, rysnc, samba ... )
> - what more?
> (a weak ago I would have considered asking such questions as esoteric)
I would add "packaging" as today it's rather hard to install in non-standard 
places.
Also preparing an official Docker container would be a way to ease deployment.
Same story for cygwin-rsync, it's all very straightforward for sysadmin-type, 
less
so for a casual user.

I suggest whoever is interested to contribute should write a short presentation 
to a
specific thread stating areas of expertise and how much time he can devolve.
This will enable to assign tasks with some hope they can be carried out.
I will write a mail right after this to start the thread.

> Wiki is another topic (and certainly not first priority). I had a look
> at the BackupPC wiki at sourceforge. At present it looks like a
> well-done repository for a summary description on BackupPC. As we
> explore issues on BackupPC, maybe notes could be collected on topics
> that would be nice to appear in the wiki. Could the wiki play a role in
> documenting plans/actions? Is there someone who feels motivated to drive
> action on the wiki? are there choices to be made?  I have experience
> with wikimedia technology, but the wiki at sourceforge looks different,
> and I have not seen links to "help". Is the wiki at github yet different?
Wiki at github is similar to wikimedia.
I suggest to start fresh there since it doesn't seem we have a lot of content 
on SourceForge.

> I do not suggest to distract from the principle issue: stabilize
> BackupPC and establish a solid base for continuing - but I think this
> kind of tour-d'horizon to get a general idea of the outstanding issues
> is a good thing to do in the present situation; "for future action" is
> always a valid reply.
Agreed.
Given the flow of "issues" coming into github it seems we indeed have something 
to fix.

> Juergen
Regards
Mauro

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup

[Norm Legare]

I have been following this discussion with interest.  Maybe I missed it, but 
I don't remember seeing it mentioned that a qualified list of OSes and 
packages and hardware where BackupPC has been tested would be published 
somewhere.

-Original Message- 
From: Mauro Condarelli
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:57 AM
To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup

Hi Adam,
comments inline.


Il 16/05/2016 17:24, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
> Thank you for taking the time to explain, but it doesn't (well,
> partially) explain how to solve my "concern". We ideally want a larger
> number of "maintainers" available to share the burden of developing
> backuppc, and allowing the survival of backuppc when a couple of people
> are too busy for extended periods of time. Consider if we have 3
> maintainers, and one moves job, another is simply swamped with
> work/family, and one is not really a developer, and gets bored of
> working on backuppc. We need to actively maintain this group of
> maintainers, and ensure there is always enough to allow someone else to
> be added, and to remove the old maintainers that can be confirmed as no
> longer interested.
This can be done easily by controlling the "Teams" in github.
You may have different teams with different capabilities, including the 
possibility
to alter team member list.

> So, lets say we now have 20 maintainers. One of those happens to be ...
> accidentally dangerous. They follow the work flow, sending their pull
> request, but since they are also a maintainer, then they immediately
> accept the request, and it is committed to the main backuppc repo. Every
> user after this point now ends up with a system that is corrupting 0.1%
> of files backed up. It might take years before this is noticed and
> tracked back to the original commit. Consider how that could be
> different if the maintainer had the intent to cause damage (without
> notice) or to steal information if ($domainname="cia.gov") { 
> send_secrets }
You need to balance between security and ease of use.
In the States, in spite of huge resources of "cia.gov", they have "automatic 
declassification"
due to the burden to handle "top secrets" for extended periods of time.

> So, I feel that we would like to enforce some peer review. Perhaps the
> solution is to require 2 maintainers to approve a patch, but I fear that
> increases the workload/makes the process more fragile.
If You want peer-review we could move to the "patchwork" infrastructure, and 
retain
the ML as primary mean, but even there I'm not aware of any way to enforce 
multiple
approval, it just makes it possible and traceable.

In general, in any unix-like system, there will be someone with "root" 
access and stopping
him is very difficult ;)
Having many persons with commit privilege (root-like PW) is good for 
redundancy, but
increases risk of lockout. Craig, very evidently, leaned toward security, 
let's avoid doing the
mirror mistake.
This is obviously different from having strong identification to keep out 
unwanted people.

> Ultimately, perhaps I'm being silly, and just seeing demons where none
> exist. I'm sure many open source projects would have similar issues, and
> have solved them.
This might be, but "better safe than sorry".

>
> Regards,
> Adam

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Fatal Error during Samba backup

[David Cramblett]

What version of Samba are you using? There is an issue in regards to newer
versions of samba having different verbose output then samba has had in the
past. BackupPC doesn't get some information it's expecting causing it to
think there is a problem. More details from an earlier email thread here:

https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/message/34770512/

David



On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:22 AM, David Williams <
dwilli...@dtw-consulting.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am still getting this issue daily.  Can anyone provide any ideas as to
> what is happening or how I can hunt down the exact error?
>
> Regards,
> --
> *Dave Williams *
> Senior Oracle MDM & Financials Consultant
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "David Williams" 
> To: "backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net" <
> backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Sent: 5/13/2016 12:23:20
> Subject: [BackupPC-users] Fatal Error during Samba backup
>
>
> Having some issues trying to backup a Samba share and trying to determine
> just what exactly the error is.  From what I can see from the error log it
> has gotten all the way to the end of this particular share and then the
> error message below, without too much detail that I can see.
>
> The command being executed is:
>
> /usr/bin/smbclient dwlaptop\\DTW-Consulting -I 192.168.15.82 -U dwilliams 
> -E -d 1 -c tarmode\ full -Tc
>
> The end of the error log file:
>
> tarExtract: Done: 0 errors, 11777 filesExist, 15089174042 sizeExist, 
> 12314421307 sizeExistComp, 11811 filesTotal, 15233442674 sizeTotal
> Got fatal error during xfer (No files dumped for share DTW-Consulting)
> Backup aborted (No files dumped for share DTW-Consulting
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> *Dave Williams *
> Senior Oracle MDM & Financials Consultant
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
>


-- 
David Cramblett
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Fatal Error during Samba backup

[David Williams]

Hi,

I am still getting this issue daily.  Can anyone provide any ideas as to 
what is happening or how I can hunt down the exact error?


Regards,

Dave Williams
Senior Oracle MDM & Financials Consultant



-- Original Message --
From: "David Williams" 
To: "backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net" 


Sent: 5/13/2016 12:23:20
Subject: [BackupPC-users] Fatal Error during Samba backup

Having some issues trying to backup a Samba share and trying to 
determine just what exactly the error is.  From what I can see from the 
error log it has gotten all the way to the end of this particular share 
and then the error message below, without too much detail that I can 
see.


The command being executed is:
/usr/bin/smbclient dwlaptop\\DTW-Consulting -I 192.168.15.82 -U 
dwilliams -E -d 1 -c tarmode\ full -Tc

The end of the error log file:
tarExtract: Done: 0 errors, 11777 filesExist, 15089174042 sizeExist, 
12314421307 sizeExistComp, 11811 filesTotal, 15233442674 sizeTotal Got 
fatal error during xfer (No files dumped for share DTW-Consulting) 
Backup aborted (No files dumped for share DTW-Consulting


Regards,

Dave Williams
Senior Oracle MDM & Financials Consultant
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup

[David Cramblett]

I think security and reliability of the code are worth waiting a few extra
days (weeks) on a release when maintainers are busy.

I want to add, one of the great things about github is how easy it is to
create your own local fork and work of it as needed. Users can also re-sync
their fork with the "upstream" (main backuppc) project very easily. If
anyone has certain patches that are too specific to be useful for the main
backuppc project, or they think the maintainers are too slow, they can
always use their own fork and pull in whatever they want.

David

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Mauro Condarelli  wrote:

> Hi Adam,
> comments inline.
>
>
> Il 16/05/2016 17:24, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
> > Thank you for taking the time to explain, but it doesn't (well,
> > partially) explain how to solve my "concern". We ideally want a larger
> > number of "maintainers" available to share the burden of developing
> > backuppc, and allowing the survival of backuppc when a couple of people
> > are too busy for extended periods of time. Consider if we have 3
> > maintainers, and one moves job, another is simply swamped with
> > work/family, and one is not really a developer, and gets bored of
> > working on backuppc. We need to actively maintain this group of
> > maintainers, and ensure there is always enough to allow someone else to
> > be added, and to remove the old maintainers that can be confirmed as no
> > longer interested.
> This can be done easily by controlling the "Teams" in github.
> You may have different teams with different capabilities, including the
> possibility
> to alter team member list.
>
> > So, lets say we now have 20 maintainers. One of those happens to be ...
> > accidentally dangerous. They follow the work flow, sending their pull
> > request, but since they are also a maintainer, then they immediately
> > accept the request, and it is committed to the main backuppc repo. Every
> > user after this point now ends up with a system that is corrupting 0.1%
> > of files backed up. It might take years before this is noticed and
> > tracked back to the original commit. Consider how that could be
> > different if the maintainer had the intent to cause damage (without
> > notice) or to steal information if ($domainname="cia.gov") {
> send_secrets }
> You need to balance between security and ease of use.
> In the States, in spite of huge resources of "cia.gov", they have
> "automatic declassification"
> due to the burden to handle "top secrets" for extended periods of time.
>
> > So, I feel that we would like to enforce some peer review. Perhaps the
> > solution is to require 2 maintainers to approve a patch, but I fear that
> > increases the workload/makes the process more fragile.
> If You want peer-review we could move to the "patchwork" infrastructure,
> and retain
> the ML as primary mean, but even there I'm not aware of any way to enforce
> multiple
> approval, it just makes it possible and traceable.
>
> In general, in any unix-like system, there will be someone with "root"
> access and stopping
> him is very difficult ;)
> Having many persons with commit privilege (root-like PW) is good for
> redundancy, but
> increases risk of lockout. Craig, very evidently, leaned toward security,
> let's avoid doing the
> mirror mistake.
> This is obviously different from having strong identification to keep out
> unwanted people.
>
> > Ultimately, perhaps I'm being silly, and just seeing demons where none
> > exist. I'm sure many open source projects would have similar issues, and
> > have solved them.
> This might be, but "better safe than sorry".
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>



-- 
David Cramblett
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/back

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Kris Lou]

I'm glad to see this get off the ground -- with no disrespect to the great
work that Craig has done over the years.

Just a couple more suggestions (and I'm sure this list will grow as the
project does):

* It might be worth contacting and inviting the individual maintainers of
the primary distributions - EPEL/Debian/et al.  IIRC, most of them are on
this list.  But I'll just echo what most of has already been said in that
we prefer to install via package managers rather than via tarball.
* It might be good to restore/convert the old website (via github), which
had a TON of useful scripts and other bits which are still applicable to
v.3.x.


Kris Lou
k...@themusiclink.net

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <
chr...@real-time.com> wrote:

> On 05/16 10:50 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
> > I would definitely suggest that the lack of FTP backup support in v4 is
> > a non-issue.
>
> I have to agree. After 10+ years of using BPC I've not found many
> situations
> where it would be really useful. Better to get other functionality out
> sooner. As Voltaire said and Kalashnikov exemplified, "the perfect is the
> enemy of the good".
>
> --
> Carl Soderstrom
> Systems Administrator
> Real-Time Enterprises
> www.real-time.com
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup

[Mauro Condarelli]

Hi Adam,
comments inline.


Il 16/05/2016 17:24, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
> Thank you for taking the time to explain, but it doesn't (well,
> partially) explain how to solve my "concern". We ideally want a larger
> number of "maintainers" available to share the burden of developing
> backuppc, and allowing the survival of backuppc when a couple of people
> are too busy for extended periods of time. Consider if we have 3
> maintainers, and one moves job, another is simply swamped with
> work/family, and one is not really a developer, and gets bored of
> working on backuppc. We need to actively maintain this group of
> maintainers, and ensure there is always enough to allow someone else to
> be added, and to remove the old maintainers that can be confirmed as no
> longer interested.
This can be done easily by controlling the "Teams" in github.
You may have different teams with different capabilities, including the 
possibility
to alter team member list.

> So, lets say we now have 20 maintainers. One of those happens to be ...
> accidentally dangerous. They follow the work flow, sending their pull
> request, but since they are also a maintainer, then they immediately
> accept the request, and it is committed to the main backuppc repo. Every
> user after this point now ends up with a system that is corrupting 0.1%
> of files backed up. It might take years before this is noticed and
> tracked back to the original commit. Consider how that could be
> different if the maintainer had the intent to cause damage (without
> notice) or to steal information if ($domainname="cia.gov") { send_secrets }
You need to balance between security and ease of use.
In the States, in spite of huge resources of "cia.gov", they have "automatic 
declassification"
due to the burden to handle "top secrets" for extended periods of time.

> So, I feel that we would like to enforce some peer review. Perhaps the
> solution is to require 2 maintainers to approve a patch, but I fear that
> increases the workload/makes the process more fragile.
If You want peer-review we could move to the "patchwork" infrastructure, and 
retain
the ML as primary mean, but even there I'm not aware of any way to enforce 
multiple
approval, it just makes it possible and traceable.

In general, in any unix-like system, there will be someone with "root" access 
and stopping
him is very difficult ;)
Having many persons with commit privilege (root-like PW) is good for 
redundancy, but
increases risk of lockout. Craig, very evidently, leaned toward security, let's 
avoid doing the
mirror mistake.
This is obviously different from having strong identification to keep out 
unwanted people.

> Ultimately, perhaps I'm being silly, and just seeing demons where none
> exist. I'm sure many open source projects would have similar issues, and
> have solved them.
This might be, but "better safe than sorry".

>
> Regards,
> Adam

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

[BackupPC-users] Issues for future backuppc activities

[Juergen Harms]

Opening a new Subject to keep this discussion somewhat readable. Some 
replies to / and adding to the list of Mauros points:

- have me join and participate in git management activities: why not? I 
have been intrigued by my ignorance on GIT - learning is always a 
challenge if there are people ready to reply to questions

- looking into divergence between V4 and V3x
I had also arrived at this kind of topic, but from a slightly different 
side: draft a short evaluation paper on the state of V3x and V4 - to 
have a solid base for what we are talking about and for deciding actions 
and priorities - without that, email discussion might become dispersive. 
I will pick this up. Immediate conclusion: writing a clever perl 
programme is one thing - but not a all the same as understanding a 
clever perl programme written by somebody else and having a different 
background. Please be patient.

- first naive question: what does that mean "to open "issues" on 
backuppc/backuppc"? one of my black holes.

Something perfectly different: how about checking how well different 
domains of competence are covered by the people already on board - and 
of themes where we are perfectly blank? We talked about programming 
skills and software management. What other domains are essential? 
checking, but also have a list of people whose arm to twist if a problem 
pops up on some particular issue. How about
- web front (or is it back?)-end for the user interface
- interface with apache and co
- platform (OS) specific issues - is cygwin part of this topic?
- components (ssh, rysnc, samba ... )
- what more?
(a weak ago I would have considered asking such questions as esoteric)

Wiki is another topic (and certainly not first priority). I had a look 
at the BackupPC wiki at sourceforge. At present it looks like a 
well-done repository for a summary description on BackupPC. As we 
explore issues on BackupPC, maybe notes could be collected on topics 
that would be nice to appear in the wiki. Could the wiki play a role in 
documenting plans/actions? Is there someone who feels motivated to drive 
action on the wiki? are there choices to be made?  I have experience 
with wikimedia technology, but the wiki at sourceforge looks different, 
and I have not seen links to "help". Is the wiki at github yet different?

I do not suggest to distract from the principle issue: stabilize 
BackupPC and establish a solid base for continuing - but I think this 
kind of tour-d'horizon to get a general idea of the outstanding issues 
is a good thing to do in the present situation; "for future action" is 
always a valid reply.

Juergen

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup (was: Status on new BackupPC v4)

[David Cramblett]

I want to add it's a good idea to make your local changes to the repo in a
git branch. As mentioned, after you make a pull request when you update the
code in your repo, the pull request will update as well. It's possible you
may be working on multiple different patches and you don't want some of
your changes getting co-mingled. If you make a branch for each change
(which is a good practice anyways), then your pull request(s) will be
isolated to the one change.

David

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Mauro Condarelli  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think a bit of explanation is in order to clarify (Lars please correct
> me if I say something wrong).
>
> Github workflow follows git workflow, which is very different from
> traditional CVS/SVN.
>
> Main difference is you do not "checkout" with git, but You "clone"; this
> means you get a complete
> repository, not just the current (or whatever version you chose to
> checkout).
> You then work with your local copy of the repository until you are
> satisfied,
> finally you publish your work to the outside world.
> I won't go into details of git usage as there are better guide than I could
> write here.
>
> GitHub workflow follows the above concept; you have to:
>   1) open an account on github (that is not your mail, it's a real
> registration on the site).
>  my is "mcondarelli"
>
>   2) clone backuppc/backuppc (or whatever else) int your account
>  I would have "mcondarelli/backuppc"
>
>   3) work *on your account* cloning from there to your own local disk.
>  *your account* will be the "origin" of your working clone.
>
>   4) synchronize *your account* with local workspace ("git push")
>
>   5) repeat (3) and (4) until satisfied.
>
>   6) open a "pull request" on the *original backuppc/backuppc*
>  this will come to attention of backuppc/backuppc mainatainers.
>
>   7) maintainers will examine patches, comment on them and, eventually ask
> for revision.
>
>   8) if you update the code on *your account* this will immediately
> reflect on the pull
>  request updating it to the new revision. No need to do anything more.
>
>   9) when also maintainers are satisfied with patches they "pull" them
> into the
>  main repository which will have a new revision.
>  the "pull request" is closed.
>
> 10) at this point you can delete the repo on your account or use it for
>  further development.
>
> This kind of workflow is a bit complex, but has several advantages:
>
> a) everyone can directly clone the main directory without further
> requirements.
> b) everyone (with free github account) can submit issues and discuss them.
> c) everyone (with free github account) can submit patches.
> d) maintainers retain control of central repository.
> e) maintainers can request small (or big) changes to patches motivating
> the request.
> f) submitters retain control of the actual patch.
> g) infrastructure at github guides everybody easing the work.
> h) there is no need to give every contributor write access to central
> repository.
> i) there is no need for maintainers to manually incorporate patches.
>
> All this may seem overcomplex, but it's actually longer to explain than to
> do.
>
> It is important people is aware about what the change in infrastructure
> actually means.
> I hope this answers Adam's concerns below.
>
> Regards
> Mauro
>
> Il 16/05/2016 15:33, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
> >
> > On 16/05/2016 23:06, Alexander Moisseev wrote:
> >> On 16.05.2016 15:50, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> >>> Finally, I've created a github account for myself, I can't promise to
> do
> >>> much, but if I can at least have the ability to submit patches, then
> I'd
> >>> appreciate it. Having never worked with github before (other than
> >>> checking out code to use), is there an ability to have (for example) 10
> >>> people active on the project, where any one of them can submit patches,
> >>> and commit patches, but each user can't commit their own patch? Just to
> >>> ensure some level of community review?
> >> Of course it is.
> > Sorry, as I mentioned, I'm not a github user (until now).
> >
> >> Any GitHub user can make pull requests, but only organization members
> can commit them into the code base.
> > So what you meant is no then? ie, one organisation member can submit a
> > patch *and* commit the same patch, without any sort of review. Sure,
> > others can see the commits, and potentially submit and commit a patch to
> > undo the "erroneous" commit, but not the same as preventing the wrong
> > commit in the first place.
> >
> > Ideally, anyone can submit a patch
> > Ideally, any "approved" person can commit a patch, as long as it isn't
> > their own
> >
> > Could that be done?
> >
> > PS, I think I forgot to include my github account name "adamgoryachev",
> > I can't promise to be terribly helpful, but I do try from time to time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
> >
>
>
> --
> Mobile security 

Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup

[Adam Goryachev]

On 17/05/2016 01:00, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This kind of workflow is a bit complex, but has several advantages:
>
> a) everyone can directly clone the main directory without further 
> requirements.
> b) everyone (with free github account) can submit issues and discuss them.
> c) everyone (with free github account) can submit patches.
> d) maintainers retain control of central repository.
> e) maintainers can request small (or big) changes to patches motivating the 
> request.
> f) submitters retain control of the actual patch.
> g) infrastructure at github guides everybody easing the work.
> h) there is no need to give every contributor write access to central 
> repository.
> i) there is no need for maintainers to manually incorporate patches.
>
> All this may seem overcomplex, but it's actually longer to explain than to do.
>
> It is important people is aware about what the change in infrastructure 
> actually means.
> I hope this answers Adam's concerns below.

Thank you for taking the time to explain, but it doesn't (well, 
partially) explain how to solve my "concern". We ideally want a larger 
number of "maintainers" available to share the burden of developing 
backuppc, and allowing the survival of backuppc when a couple of people 
are too busy for extended periods of time. Consider if we have 3 
maintainers, and one moves job, another is simply swamped with 
work/family, and one is not really a developer, and gets bored of 
working on backuppc. We need to actively maintain this group of 
maintainers, and ensure there is always enough to allow someone else to 
be added, and to remove the old maintainers that can be confirmed as no 
longer interested.

So, lets say we now have 20 maintainers. One of those happens to be ... 
accidentally dangerous. They follow the work flow, sending their pull 
request, but since they are also a maintainer, then they immediately 
accept the request, and it is committed to the main backuppc repo. Every 
user after this point now ends up with a system that is corrupting 0.1% 
of files backed up. It might take years before this is noticed and 
tracked back to the original commit. Consider how that could be 
different if the maintainer had the intent to cause damage (without 
notice) or to steal information if ($domainname="cia.gov") { send_secrets }

So, I feel that we would like to enforce some peer review. Perhaps the 
solution is to require 2 maintainers to approve a patch, but I fear that 
increases the workload/makes the process more fragile.

Ultimately, perhaps I'm being silly, and just seeing demons where none 
exist. I'm sure many open source projects would have similar issues, and 
have solved them.

Regards,
Adam
> Il 16/05/2016 15:33, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
>> On 16/05/2016 23:06, Alexander Moisseev wrote:
>>> On 16.05.2016 15:50, Adam Goryachev wrote:
 Finally, I've created a github account for myself, I can't promise to do
 much, but if I can at least have the ability to submit patches, then I'd
 appreciate it. Having never worked with github before (other than
 checking out code to use), is there an ability to have (for example) 10
 people active on the project, where any one of them can submit patches,
 and commit patches, but each user can't commit their own patch? Just to
 ensure some level of community review?
>>> Of course it is.
>> Sorry, as I mentioned, I'm not a github user (until now).
>>
>>> Any GitHub user can make pull requests, but only organization members can 
>>> commit them into the code base.
>> So what you meant is no then? ie, one organisation member can submit a
>> patch *and* commit the same patch, without any sort of review. Sure,
>> others can see the commits, and potentially submit and commit a patch to
>> undo the "erroneous" commit, but not the same as preventing the wrong
>> commit in the first place.
>>
>> Ideally, anyone can submit a patch
>> Ideally, any "approved" person can commit a patch, as long as it isn't
>> their own
>>
>> Could that be done?
>>
>> PS, I think I forgot to include my github account name "adamgoryachev",
>> I can't promise to be terribly helpful, but I do try from time to time.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Adam
>>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/


-

Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup (was: Status on new BackupPC v4)

[Mauro Condarelli]

Hi,

I think a bit of explanation is in order to clarify (Lars please correct me if 
I say something wrong).

Github workflow follows git workflow, which is very different from traditional 
CVS/SVN.

Main difference is you do not "checkout" with git, but You "clone"; this means 
you get a complete
repository, not just the current (or whatever version you chose to checkout).
You then work with your local copy of the repository until you are satisfied,
finally you publish your work to the outside world.
I won't go into details of git usage as there are better guide than I could
write here.

GitHub workflow follows the above concept; you have to:
  1) open an account on github (that is not your mail, it's a real registration 
on the site).
 my is "mcondarelli"

  2) clone backuppc/backuppc (or whatever else) int your account
 I would have "mcondarelli/backuppc"

  3) work *on your account* cloning from there to your own local disk.
 *your account* will be the "origin" of your working clone.

  4) synchronize *your account* with local workspace ("git push")

  5) repeat (3) and (4) until satisfied.

  6) open a "pull request" on the *original backuppc/backuppc*
 this will come to attention of backuppc/backuppc mainatainers.

  7) maintainers will examine patches, comment on them and, eventually ask for 
revision.

  8) if you update the code on *your account* this will immediately reflect on 
the pull
 request updating it to the new revision. No need to do anything more.

  9) when also maintainers are satisfied with patches they "pull" them into the
 main repository which will have a new revision.
 the "pull request" is closed.

10) at this point you can delete the repo on your account or use it for
 further development.

This kind of workflow is a bit complex, but has several advantages:

a) everyone can directly clone the main directory without further requirements.
b) everyone (with free github account) can submit issues and discuss them.
c) everyone (with free github account) can submit patches.
d) maintainers retain control of central repository.
e) maintainers can request small (or big) changes to patches motivating the 
request.
f) submitters retain control of the actual patch.
g) infrastructure at github guides everybody easing the work.
h) there is no need to give every contributor write access to central 
repository.
i) there is no need for maintainers to manually incorporate patches.

All this may seem overcomplex, but it's actually longer to explain than to do.

It is important people is aware about what the change in infrastructure 
actually means.
I hope this answers Adam's concerns below.

Regards
Mauro

Il 16/05/2016 15:33, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
>
> On 16/05/2016 23:06, Alexander Moisseev wrote:
>> On 16.05.2016 15:50, Adam Goryachev wrote:
>>> Finally, I've created a github account for myself, I can't promise to do
>>> much, but if I can at least have the ability to submit patches, then I'd
>>> appreciate it. Having never worked with github before (other than
>>> checking out code to use), is there an ability to have (for example) 10
>>> people active on the project, where any one of them can submit patches,
>>> and commit patches, but each user can't commit their own patch? Just to
>>> ensure some level of community review?
>> Of course it is.
> Sorry, as I mentioned, I'm not a github user (until now).
>
>> Any GitHub user can make pull requests, but only organization members can 
>> commit them into the code base.
> So what you meant is no then? ie, one organisation member can submit a
> patch *and* commit the same patch, without any sort of review. Sure,
> others can see the commits, and potentially submit and commit a patch to
> undo the "erroneous" commit, but not the same as preventing the wrong
> commit in the first place.
>
> Ideally, anyone can submit a patch
> Ideally, any "approved" person can commit a patch, as long as it isn't
> their own
>
> Could that be done?
>
> PS, I think I forgot to include my github account name "adamgoryachev",
> I can't promise to be terribly helpful, but I do try from time to time.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom]

On 05/16 10:50 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
> I would definitely suggest that the lack of FTP backup support in v4 is 
> a non-issue. 

I have to agree. After 10+ years of using BPC I've not found many situations
where it would be really useful. Better to get other functionality out
sooner. As Voltaire said and Kalashnikov exemplified, "the perfect is the
enemy of the good".

-- 
Carl Soderstrom
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Adam Goryachev]

Hi,

I've trawled through my inbox, and submitted a few issues that I was 
able to find. Right now, I would suggest the highest priority issues are 
1 and 4.

If you are knowledgeable with C, then please take a look at issue 1, I 
suspect this could be as simple as an uninitialised variable/etc, but I 
ran out of knowledge on trying to fix it.

I see 4 is marked as wishlist, though if the host being backed up has 
enough files, or you keep a huge number of backups, then it will 
actually never get around to doing a new backup.

eg, a host with 20 million files might take 40 hours to do the refcnt, 
so you can't do daily backups.
Using BPCv3, I have my max backups configured to , and I have 
over 5 years of daily backups. This client never wants to delete any 
version of any file, ever...

So, just saying, IMHO, issue 4 might be more serious than a wishlist item.

Can someone review some of the many other github project of backuppc, 
and see if there are relevant patches that can be absorbed? That could 
also be a great starting point.

I feel that after a number of attempts to make this happen, some 
progress is being made (I found a number of threads in my email where 
this development issue was discussed, and until now they died with no 
action. I think this time we just might have the right people and the 
right timing to get critical mass.

Regards,
Adam

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Gerald Brandt]

On 2016-05-16 07:50 AM, Adam Goryachev wrote:
>
> On 16/05/2016 22:05, Stephen Joyce wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks to Lars and Mauro. It's great that you've taken this on.
>>
>> FWIW, I contacted Craig directly last week and received a reply over
>> the weekend. It sounds like he's quite busy, and does not regularly
>> read these lists, but he still hopes to be able to contribute more in
>> the future (ie, review updates and releases).
>>
>> He also mentioned that the one remaining feature he had planned for
>> 4.0 before it became beta was FTP. Unless there is a large demand
>> among users for FTP, I'm unsure it should hold up the beta label.
>> Thoughts?
>>
> I would definitely suggest that the lack of FTP backup support in v4 is
> a non-issue. I think the huge majority of users are using one of rsync,
> tar or smb (I could be wrong, but based on the emails we see on the list
> regarding the various backup methods). In addition, if any user of
> FTP finds that such a feature is so important, then they will need to
> find a way to implement the feature. Craig clearly has no plans to work
> on the feature (or should I say no time available), so waiting for this
> feature could easily take another 5 years or more.
>
> There are known bugs in v4, and it would be nice to get those fixed
> before releasing a 4.0 (even though we all know that the .0 release is
> buggy, we should at least remove the known bugs first).
>
>
I use FTP backup on a single, very old machine running QNX 4. I've been 
using BackupPC for over a decade, and this is the only machine I've ever 
used FTP on.

Gerald


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting]

On 16/05/16 15:33, Adam Goryachev wrote:

> Ideally, anyone can submit a patch
> Ideally, any "approved" person can commit a patch, as long as it isn't 
> their own
> 
> Could that be done?

Yes, this is done using Pull Requests. The process is described in this
article:
https://help.github.com/articles/using-pull-requests/

> PS, I think I forgot to include my github account name "adamgoryachev", 
> I can't promise to be terribly helpful, but I do try from time to time.

I've invited you to the organization. :-)

-- 
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting]

On 16/05/16 14:56, Juergen Harms wrote:

> Username: I dont remember (-, sorry - found the confirmation mail when I 
> first joined the list in 2008, but that has no reference to a user name 
> I used at that time.
> 
> My email address is juergen.ha...@unige.ch - in the past I normally used 
> Juergen_Harms are a lower-case clone, today more and more the email 
> address itself. Can you arrange that, Lars, or should I simply 
> un-subscribe and subscribe again? can you force my email address to be 
> my username?

I tried posting your email address into the "Forgot Password" page on
GitHub, but they don't have it registered. You're going to have to
register a new user. :-)

-- 
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Adam Goryachev]

On 16/05/2016 23:06, Alexander Moisseev wrote:
> On 16.05.2016 15:50, Adam Goryachev wrote:
>> Finally, I've created a github account for myself, I can't promise to do
>> much, but if I can at least have the ability to submit patches, then I'd
>> appreciate it. Having never worked with github before (other than
>> checking out code to use), is there an ability to have (for example) 10
>> people active on the project, where any one of them can submit patches,
>> and commit patches, but each user can't commit their own patch? Just to
>> ensure some level of community review?
> Of course it is.
Sorry, as I mentioned, I'm not a github user (until now).

> Any GitHub user can make pull requests, but only organization members can 
> commit them into the code base.
So what you meant is no then? ie, one organisation member can submit a 
patch *and* commit the same patch, without any sort of review. Sure, 
others can see the commits, and potentially submit and commit a patch to 
undo the "erroneous" commit, but not the same as preventing the wrong 
commit in the first place.

Ideally, anyone can submit a patch
Ideally, any "approved" person can commit a patch, as long as it isn't 
their own

Could that be done?

PS, I think I forgot to include my github account name "adamgoryachev", 
I can't promise to be terribly helpful, but I do try from time to time.

Regards,
Adam

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Rick L]

Chime in for encouragement. Great to see this picking up such momentum. 
It was time.

On 05/15/2016 11:15 AM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> On 05/14 05:53 , Ib H. Rasmussen wrote:
>> Although I'm not a contributor, and I don't think i'm cabable of being
>> one, I have been using BackupPC for more than 10 years, and i'm
>> absolutely for this initiative and i'm looking forward to the success of it.
> Same here.
>


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Alexander Moisseev]

On 16.05.2016 15:50, Adam Goryachev wrote:
>
> Finally, I've created a github account for myself, I can't promise to do
> much, but if I can at least have the ability to submit patches, then I'd
> appreciate it. Having never worked with github before (other than
> checking out code to use), is there an ability to have (for example) 10
> people active on the project, where any one of them can submit patches,
> and commit patches, but each user can't commit their own patch? Just to
> ensure some level of community review?

Of course it is. Any GitHub user can make pull requests, but only organization 
members can commit them into the code base.


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Mauro Condarelli]

Thanks Lars.


Il 16/05/2016 13:35, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting ha scritto:
> On 16/05/16 13:23, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
>> My current plans are:
>>
>> 1) bring github up to date.
> I have now finished bringing it up to date and have published it on github:
>
> https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc
> https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc-xs
> https://github.com/backuppc/rsync-bpc
>
>> 4) there are several alpha tarballs for v4.0.0, keeping them as a bit of 
>> history in the
>>  branch would be nice.
> I have created a branch "v4.0.0" and imported each tarball release as a
> commit.
> https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/tree/v4.0.0
>
>> 5) request everyone to open "issues" on backuppc/backuppc for:
>>  a) patches already sent against current code-base.
>> this is necessary to consolidate them and avoid losing a lot of good 
>> work.
>>  b) bug (or "rough edges") reports against current code-base.
>> this is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of involved initial 
>> effort.
>>  c) wishes.
>> as we want to move ahead we could as well understand where we want 
>> to go.
> Issues is open for business, go ahead and report.
>
> Mauro has been invited to the organization already. Please post your
> username if you would like to join in.
>
I'm in and in the "committer" team,
tanks again.

Regards
Mauro

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Mauro Condarelli]

Hi Stephen,
comments inline below.

Il 16/05/2016 14:05, Stephen Joyce ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to Lars and Mauro. It's great that you've taken this on.
>
> FWIW, I contacted Craig directly last week and received a reply over the 
> weekend. It sounds like he's quite busy, and does not regularly read these 
> lists, but he still hopes to be able to contribute more in the future (ie, 
> review updates and releases).
MANY THANKS!
Is there any chance You are "stephen14"?
I assume this means we have Craig's blessing for this initiative (if we do not 
screw it up, of course ;) )

> He also mentioned that the one remaining feature he had planned for 4.0 
> before it became beta was FTP. Unless there is a large demand among users for 
> FTP, I'm unsure it should hold up the beta label. Thoughts?
I must confess I never really used v4, I remained on "stable" v3.
All who are using v4 in production environment are urged to comment on this 
issue.
Bug reports and rough edges should be reported ASAP as github issues.
I will wait some time (2w?) and then, if nothing major shows up I'll make a 
first release.

> In any event, since the sourceforge pages are currently the 'official' 
> location where new users land (and where distros look for new code), I asked 
> him to make me an admin on the sourceforge project page. So if changes are 
> needed there, including a link to patched and/or bleeding-edge source on 
> github before it makes it into an official release, I can do that. I'm also 
> amenable to a few other regular contributors having admin as long as they 
> have the time, inclination, and ability to help out.
I think you should add a line stating development is continuing on github, with 
a pointer there.
Later, if things really pick up speed, we can also obsolete the SourceForge 
project, but I wouldn't rush it now.

> I think if it's eventually officiallyhosted on github, it's important to 
> leave the door open for Craig to assist when/if time permits.
Of course.
BackupPC is his project and he is welcome whenever he likes.
If You have his github account (if any, otherwise he will have to open one) I'm 
pretty sure Lars will be happy to add it to github organization.

ANY input from him, either direct or through You will be most welcome.
Please inform him, if possible and if he has time, about our intentions, if he 
objects we would really like not to go against his wishes.

In particular I would like to have his blessing in the move from the (somewhat 
obsolete) CVS repository to github (and git in general).
Note this means the old repo should be "frozen" and any commit should happen in 
the new one would he agree?
Keeping two different repos in sync doesn't seem sensible to me.

> Cheers,
> Stephen
Regards
Mauro


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Juergen Harms]

On 05/16/2016 01:35 PM, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote:
 > Please post your username if you would like to join in.

Yes, please put me on the list. I had mentioned areas of technical 
skills - I should add that I also have experience in proposing, running 
and reviewing projects and motivating people - I have a university 
background and heavily contributed to the creation of the swiss and 
European academic networks. This experience should also come in 
profitable with BackupPC.

Username: I dont remember (-, sorry - found the confirmation mail when I 
first joined the list in 2008, but that has no reference to a user name 
I used at that time.

My email address is juergen.ha...@unige.ch - in the past I normally used 
Juergen_Harms are a lower-case clone, today more and more the email 
address itself. Can you arrange that, Lars, or should I simply 
un-subscribe and subscribe again? can you force my email address to be 
my username?

Juergen

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Adam Goryachev]

On 16/05/2016 22:05, Stephen Joyce wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to Lars and Mauro. It's great that you've taken this on.
>
> FWIW, I contacted Craig directly last week and received a reply over 
> the weekend. It sounds like he's quite busy, and does not regularly 
> read these lists, but he still hopes to be able to contribute more in 
> the future (ie, review updates and releases).
>
> He also mentioned that the one remaining feature he had planned for 
> 4.0 before it became beta was FTP. Unless there is a large demand 
> among users for FTP, I'm unsure it should hold up the beta label. 
> Thoughts?
>
I would definitely suggest that the lack of FTP backup support in v4 is 
a non-issue. I think the huge majority of users are using one of rsync, 
tar or smb (I could be wrong, but based on the emails we see on the list 
regarding the various backup methods). In addition, if any user of 
FTP finds that such a feature is so important, then they will need to 
find a way to implement the feature. Craig clearly has no plans to work 
on the feature (or should I say no time available), so waiting for this 
feature could easily take another 5 years or more.

There are known bugs in v4, and it would be nice to get those fixed 
before releasing a 4.0 (even though we all know that the .0 release is 
buggy, we should at least remove the known bugs first).

> In any event, since the sourceforge pages are currently the 'official' 
> location where new users land (and where distros look for new code), I 
> asked him to make me an admin on the sourceforge project page. So if 
> changes are needed there, including a link to patched and/or 
> bleeding-edge source on github before it makes it into an official 
> release, I can do that. I'm also amenable to a few other regular 
> contributors having admin as long as they have the time, inclination, 
> and ability to help out.

I would suggest that a number of projects have moved away from 
sourceforge, and it may be a good time to do that. Why not just repoint 
the source repository from sourceforge CVS to github? I'm not sure if 
you can post "releases" on github, but I think it could be better to do 
that as well. Removing the reliance on sourceforge from the project. 
However, having some edit access to sourceforge makes this a non-issue, 
so whatever is easiest. Just remember that regardless of intentions now, 
in 5+ years, we still need multiple active contributors who will have 
write access to both github and sourceforge.
>
> I think if it's eventually officiallyhosted on github, it's important 
> to leave the door open for Craig to assist when/if time permits.
Can we simply add Craig to the github, where he would also have access 
to add patches, or make releases as needed. I'm sure I am not alone in 
saying that we would all be ecstatic to see even an occasional patch or 
update from him, he is clearly very talented having created the project 
that so many people want to use.

PS, I would vote that the project name is kept as BackupPC, and even 
continue with the version number schemes (unless Craig objects to 
either/both of those). It will keep it simple for all the users, and it 
very much reflects the fact that 99.9% of the source code is identical. 
So adding a couple of patches and releasing a 3.4.0, and similarly 
adding some patches and releasing a 4.0.0beta1 (considering the amount 
of testing done to date, I don't think it needs to be considered alpha 
anymore).

PPS, I want to be clear, I think Craig has done an awesome job, and can 
understand that he would like some ability to continue to father his 
project, which I think we would all like and appreciate. Like any child, 
the project is now very mature, and widely used, and needs to "grow up", 
it needs to become bigger than any one person (or two or three), just 
like Linux. If Craig is realistically able to regularly approve patches, 
similar to Linus, then perfect, but in case that doesn't happen, lets 
have a few others that can.

Finally, I've created a github account for myself, I can't promise to do 
much, but if I can at least have the ability to submit patches, then I'd 
appreciate it. Having never worked with github before (other than 
checking out code to use), is there an ability to have (for example) 10 
people active on the project, where any one of them can submit patches, 
and commit patches, but each user can't commit their own patch? Just to 
ensure some level of community review?

Regards,
Adam

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mail

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Stephen Joyce]

Hi,

Thanks to Lars and Mauro. It's great that you've taken this on.

FWIW, I contacted Craig directly last week and received a reply over the 
weekend. It sounds like he's quite busy, and does not regularly read these 
lists, but he still hopes to be able to contribute more in the future (ie, 
review updates and releases).


He also mentioned that the one remaining feature he had planned for 4.0 
before it became beta was FTP. Unless there is a large demand among users 
for FTP, I'm unsure it should hold up the beta label. Thoughts?


In any event, since the sourceforge pages are currently the 'official' 
location where new users land (and where distros look for new code), I 
asked him to make me an admin on the sourceforge project page. So if 
changes are needed there, including a link to patched and/or bleeding-edge 
source on github before it makes it into an official release, I can do 
that. I'm also amenable to a few other regular contributors having admin as 
long as they have the time, inclination, and ability to help out.


I think if it's eventually officiallyhosted on github, it's important to 
leave the door open for Craig to assist when/if time permits.


Cheers,
Stephen

On Mon, 16 May 2016, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote:


On 16/05/16 13:23, Mauro Condarelli wrote:

My current plans are:

1) bring github up to date.


I have now finished bringing it up to date and have published it on github:

https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc
https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc-xs
https://github.com/backuppc/rsync-bpc


4) there are several alpha tarballs for v4.0.0, keeping them as a bit of 
history in the
branch would be nice.


I have created a branch "v4.0.0" and imported each tarball release as a
commit.
https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/tree/v4.0.0


5) request everyone to open "issues" on backuppc/backuppc for:
a) patches already sent against current code-base.
   this is necessary to consolidate them and avoid losing a lot of good 
work.
b) bug (or "rough edges") reports against current code-base.
   this is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of involved initial effort.
c) wishes.
   as we want to move ahead we could as well understand where we want to go.


Issues is open for business, go ahead and report.

Mauro has been invited to the organization already. Please post your
username if you would like to join in.

--
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting]

On 16/05/16 13:23, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> My current plans are:
> 
> 1) bring github up to date.

I have now finished bringing it up to date and have published it on github:

https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc
https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc-xs
https://github.com/backuppc/rsync-bpc

> 4) there are several alpha tarballs for v4.0.0, keeping them as a bit of 
> history in the
> branch would be nice.

I have created a branch "v4.0.0" and imported each tarball release as a
commit.
https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/tree/v4.0.0

> 5) request everyone to open "issues" on backuppc/backuppc for:
> a) patches already sent against current code-base.
>this is necessary to consolidate them and avoid losing a lot of good 
> work.
> b) bug (or "rough edges") reports against current code-base.
>this is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of involved initial effort.
> c) wishes.
>as we want to move ahead we could as well understand where we want to 
> go.

Issues is open for business, go ahead and report.

Mauro has been invited to the organization already. Please post your
username if you would like to join in.

-- 
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Mauro Condarelli]

Il 16/05/2016 12:21, Juergen Harms ha scritto:

> Things appear to shape up nicely, there are positive replies to many of
> the pending issues. Given the response of Lars - thanks - my biggest
> preoccupation has gone away: contact with Craig would still be nice, but
> is not essential any more, and between Mauro and Lars there are now two
> persons who can actively pursue infrastructure issues - split the load
> and assure "redundancy" - I agree with Adam, that is important.

I would really like to have You on-board, if You feel like.

I know You are not a git-guru, but You would be welcome to do some admin chores,

As it seems we are moving to github I encourage You to register there (if not 
already

done) and notify Your username to Lars.

Getting a workable email address for Craig is still a priority.

If anyone can help there...

> I agree that a "devel" mailing list is probably needed - but I see the
> need of keeping the members of the "users" list motivated and aware of
> what is going on - that is an issue that contributed to having arrived
> in the present situation. Is IRC an alternative? not my preferred style,
> but I am more than one generation back. I guess both is needed - some
> brainstorming will be necessary, that is better done with IRC.

My current plans are:

1) bring github up to date.

2) have someone (Perl-savvy) to evaluate degree of divergence between v3.x and 
v4.x
Can You have a look Juergen?

3) if, as suspected, the code-base is roughly the same branch v3.3.1 using 
tarballs.
otherwise start a new project (BackupNG ?) as fork of V3.3.1

4) there are several alpha tarballs for v4.0.0, keeping them as a bit of 
history in the
branch would be nice.

5) request everyone to open "issues" on backuppc/backuppc for:
a) patches already sent against current code-base.
   this is necessary to consolidate them and avoid losing a lot of good 
work.
b) bug (or "rough edges") reports against current code-base.
   this is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of involved initial effort.
c) wishes.
   as we want to move ahead we could as well understand where we want to go.

6) gradually move all available documentation to github wiki.
current sourceforge wiki si useless and web page is unmaintained.

7) invite everyone to a brainstorming session over IRC at freenode/#backuppc

8) keep global discussions on this list as we want to stress continuity.
BTW the list is co-owned by cbarrett and "stephen14"
does he read us, perchance?
should we try to contact him? ideas?


> Another item where I start being optimistic is sustainability - can the
> activity we are talking about be maintained over a couple of years?
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I'm optimistic.
I can commit (barring major disasters) to follow this in the next years.
My problem is I might "disappear", due to workload, for relatively long 
periods, so it
would be unwise to rely only on myself.
OTOH I see several people willing to help, so I'm confident we can work 
something out.

> Juergen
Mauro

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Sorin Srbu]

> -Original Message-
> From: Juergen Harms [mailto:juergen.ha...@unige.ch]
> Sent: den 16 maj 2016 12:22
> To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4
> 
> Things appear to shape up nicely, there are positive replies to many of
> the pending issues. Given the response of Lars - thanks - my biggest
> preoccupation has gone away: contact with Craig would still be nice, but
> is not essential any more, and between Mauro and Lars there are now two
> persons who can actively pursue infrastructure issues - split the load
> and assure "redundancy" - I agree with Adam, that is important.
> 
> I agree that a "devel" mailing list is probably needed - but I see the
> need of keeping the members of the "users" list motivated and aware of
> what is going on - that is an issue that contributed to having arrived
> in the present situation. Is IRC an alternative? not my preferred style,
> but I am more than one generation back. I guess both is needed - some
> brainstorming will be necessary, that is better done with IRC.
> 
> Another item where I start being optimistic is sustainability - can the
> activity we are talking about be maintained over a couple of years?

Great work guys!

-- 
//Sorin


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC

[Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting]

On 16/05/16 11:13, Mauro Condarelli wrote:

> Il 16/05/2016 10:04, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting ha scritto:
>> The CVS repo is a mess, so I abandoned a sync. Also, I haven't been able
>> to find any signs of where the repo for v4 is. I can only guess that
>> Craig keeps it private and publishes zip files with releases.
> We are trying to contact Craig (who seems *very* busy with his new
position), but
> he might not be available at all.
> In that case we will do a baseline commit from tarballs and start from
there.
>
> If You can, it would be nice if You could bring the repo up-to-date
with current CVS.
> After that we can decide if to open a new project for v4 (rationale
being it really
> changes a lot and even backend repository structure is not compatible
anymore;
> nice nickname might be BackupNG) or simply do a branch and populate it
with
> tarball contents.

I have started to bring the repo up-to-date with current CVS already.
Will publish when it's finished later today.


>> I have just read the discussion on the dev mailing list. I couldn't find
>> your name in the discussion, though.
> That's strange; currently topmost message at
https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/backuppc-users/
> (not dev!) is mine (Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

Sorry, I only looked in the dev list. Found it here in users.


>> However, I will be happy to give you and more people admin rights.
> I am "mcondarelli" on github (https://github.com/mcondarelli) and I
would like to join https://github.com/backuppc
> organization.

I'll add you to the org. Whare are David's and Juergen's usernames?

Best regards,
Lars Tobias




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Juergen Harms]

Things appear to shape up nicely, there are positive replies to many of 
the pending issues. Given the response of Lars - thanks - my biggest 
preoccupation has gone away: contact with Craig would still be nice, but 
is not essential any more, and between Mauro and Lars there are now two 
persons who can actively pursue infrastructure issues - split the load 
and assure "redundancy" - I agree with Adam, that is important.

I agree that a "devel" mailing list is probably needed - but I see the 
need of keeping the members of the "users" list motivated and aware of 
what is going on - that is an issue that contributed to having arrived 
in the present situation. Is IRC an alternative? not my preferred style, 
but I am more than one generation back. I guess both is needed - some 
brainstorming will be necessary, that is better done with IRC.

Another item where I start being optimistic is sustainability - can the 
activity we are talking about be maintained over a couple of years?

Juergen

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC

[Alexander Moisseev]

On 16.05.16 12:13, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> If You can, it would be nice if You could bring the repo up-to-date with 
> current CVS.
> After that we can decide if to open a new project for v4 (rationale being it 
> really
> changes a lot and even backend repository structure is not compatible anymore;
> nice nickname might be BackupNG) or simply do a branch and populate it with
> tarball contents.
>
On the other hand v3 and v4 have many identical or very similar code parts. 
Having them as a branches of the same project would simplify synchronous 
changes. I think we will have to support v3 for significant period of time. 
There will be a lot of identical bug fixes. Even minor features would be added 
to both branches.

> I send this message in CC: to the list; whoever is interested in helping out 
> *managing* this (David, Juergen, who else?)
> please speak up. I would like to keep this list short, but not *too* short.
I'am interested https://github.com/moisseev

> Should we move this discussion to the BackupPC-devel list or is it better to 
> keep it here to get a wider audience?.
>
I think for the moment we need a wider audience as possible.
FUY Both lists somehow mirrored to Backup Central Forums as well.


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC

[Mauro Condarelli]

Thanks Lars,

comments inline.


Il 16/05/2016 10:04, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting ha scritto:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> Yes, I created the backuppc/backuppc for exactly this reason, so I'm all
> too happy to use this for the project.
Glad to hear that, THANKS.

> I planned for it to be a mirror of the CVS code until there was
> consensus on the mailing list to fork the project, as there have been
> such discussions before.
I know.
I hope this time we will get enough momentum.
Any help will be very welcome.

> The CVS repo is a mess, so I abandoned a sync. Also, I haven't been able
> to find any signs of where the repo for v4 is. I can only guess that
> Craig keeps it private and publishes zip files with releases.
We are trying to contact Craig (who seems *very* busy with his new position), 
but
he might not be available at all.
In that case we will do a baseline commit from tarballs and start from there.

If You can, it would be nice if You could bring the repo up-to-date with 
current CVS.
After that we can decide if to open a new project for v4 (rationale being it 
really
changes a lot and even backend repository structure is not compatible anymore;
nice nickname might be BackupNG) or simply do a branch and populate it with
tarball contents.

> As for code contributions, I have little spare time in this phase of my
> life, full time job, two small kids and a house that need maintenance too.
Understandable, many of us are in the same position.
Any contribution, even raw ideas, will be appreciated.

> I have just read the discussion on the dev mailing list. I couldn't find
> your name in the discussion, though.
That's strange; currently topmost message at 
https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/backuppc-users/
(not dev!) is mine (Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4
From: Mauro Condarelli  - 2016-05-16 07:49:36).

> However, I will be happy to give you and more people admin rights.
I am "mcondarelli" on github (https://github.com/mcondarelli) and I would like 
to join https://github.com/backuppc
organization.

I send this message in CC: to the list; whoever is interested in helping out 
*managing* this (David, Juergen, who else?)
please speak up. I would like to keep this list short, but not *too* short.

Should we move this discussion to the BackupPC-devel list or is it better to 
keep it here to get a wider audience?.



--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4

[Mauro Condarelli]

Hi Adam,
comments inline


Il 16/05/2016 01:43, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
> I had intentions of trying to pick up the project and start fixing
Welcome on board!

> 1) Send the email to Craig, and expect that no reply will be received.
I am waiting for a usable address for that; I strongly doubt he reads mail sent 
to
cbarr...@sourceforge.net
If someone can get a better address via Google, LinkedIn or whatever pretty 
please do.
If someone exchanged personal mails with Craig (like Wilhelm did) maybe it 
would be
better if they send the mail for a better chance to avoid immediate deletion.

> 2) Contact the owner of the backuppc/backuppc project on github and see
I already sent mail to Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting.
Let's hope for an answer.

> 3) Try to give admin level access to a number of people that:
Agreed.

> PS, yes, I'd be happy to be one of the many people to contribute, but
> clearly can't manage much, otherwise I would have already done it.
Thanks.

Regards
Mauro

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/