Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Restarting development ... or starting over

[Daniel Miller]

On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Sounds interesting. However, sounds like "new version" is an understatement
> and what you've got is an entirely new project. Nothing wrong with that, but
> I think you might have more success thinking about it that way.

I thought about that too. However, I'm calling it a new implementation since 
that's really what it is. To my knowledge the new features I have 
implemented/planned do not make my tool an entirely new project. They are 
complimentary to the current features in rdiff-backup. I am retaining the two 
main characteristics of rdiff-backup: a full mirror of the most recent backup, 
and increment-forever using the rsync algorithm for older revisions. I'm 
tentatively calling my "new version" rdiff-backup 2.0, although I would be 
hesitant to formally name it that before I have made a release.

> Two questions: 
> 
> 1) are you planning to better handle renamed files? That's killin' me.

I have thought about this, and I don't think it would be too hard to implement 
this using inode tracking. However, it might incur more memory overhead. Input 
is welcome.

> 2) Are you aware of Duplicity? <http://duplicity.nongnu.org/>

I looked at it briefly, although I can't remember anymore why I decided against 
it in favor of rdiff-backup. Possibly the current mirror?

~ Daniel