[Sugar-devel] F11-0.88 unmerged patches summary

[Martin Abente]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:50:02 +0100, Gary Martin
<garycmartin at googlemail.com>
wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2010, at 14:02, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:57, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at 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.