Re: [Duplicity-talk] --log-fd and --log-file output (possible) bug

[Kenneth Loafman]

Evan Jeffrey wrote:
> I use the --log-file collection status as part of my backup script.  I
> recently upgraded and noticed of the date stamps changed with the new
> filenames, and broke my backup script.  Actually, the log format can be
> changed by using the --old-filenames switch, which I am using to keep my
> script working.  Of course, that is only a temporary fix as that switch
> will eventually go away.
> 
> So, I guess that brings up three points.  First off, it would be best if
> the 'machine readable' log format didn't change unless necessary, I
> doubt that mine are the only backup scripts that broke.  While it was
> nice to be able to use the --old-filenames switch to keep my scripts
> working, the log format probably shouldn't depend on that anyway, I
> assume this was unintentional.  Finally, I don't know whether it is
> better to use the new or the old format.  I think the new format has
> actually been around longer than the old format by now, so changing back
> may break a bunch of scripts again.  However, the old format is more
> standard and can be understood by GNU date, which is handy.

The old-style date format used special characters which meant that it
could not be used on Windows file systems and used local time zones
which were hard to port between locations.  The change to the log file
was inadvertent and you're the first to mention it.  I'm not sure how
many other people actually use the collection status as input to a
script, so I doubt that a change back would be a big deal.

The old-style format and short names are going away fairly soon in an
effort to standardize the filename formats and to simplify the code, so
its really not much of an option to stay with the old names for too much
longer.  I have not set a date, so it's more dependent on how many bugs
get reported against the old/short name formats.

...Ken

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature