On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:50:02 +0100, Gary Martin <garycmar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 1 Jul 2010, at 14:02, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:57, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org> >> wrote: >>> == New Features == >>> >>> sugar/backup-0001-Volumes-Backup-and-Restore.patch >>> sugar/backup-0002-Journal-XS-backup-and-restore.patch >>> >>> There are concerns about restore deleting new entries since the >>> last backup. I agree, but since nobody seems to have the time to >>> implement and test a more sophisticated procedure, at this time >>> this is the best restore feature we have for Sugar. >> >> Do we know any other deployment willing to deploy this? >> >> If we decide to merge it, I think it should be disabled by default and >> have a gconf setting, because knowingly shipping a feature that causes >> data loss may not be a good idea. > > Sounds fair. I was going to suggest making sure there was at least a > second user action needed after hitting a backup or restore button (I > skimmed through the patch code but couldn't see a conformation warning > step). A warning notification with Cancel/Backup, and Cancel/Restore could > help avoid some accidents.
Would be very useful if you could also reply this comments on the proper Backup Restore topic. :) That is why the patch was sent to the mailing list in the first time, for people to test, read the code and give their opinions. _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
