duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[Kenneth Loafman <kenneth@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Either of you see a show-stopper to keep 0.6.24 from going out as-is?  We
have an impressive list of changes already.

I've resurrected the old 0.7 series, merged in the current 0.6, and will
merge this set of changes in later.  Does everyone agree that this is a
good place to make the switch to 0.7?  Do we want to make 0.7 the current
focus of development after the release of 0.6.24?


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:15 AM, edso <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On 28.04.2014 14:55, Michael Terry wrote:
> >> this could raise a key not found error. can you really guaratee the key
> will be there?
> >
> > Yes, because now query_info calls the backend query function, then makes
> sure that 'size' exists for each filename passed.  This was part of the
> "allow backends to be dumb" strategy -- if they skip a filename or don't
> provide 'size', the rest of duplicity doesn't have to care.  Guarantees
> come from the wrapper class, not the backends.
> >
> >> any reason why you removed rsync here?
> >
> > Yeah, I changed the rsync backend to support relative/local urls.  This
> was so we could test it as part of our normal automated tests (without
> needing a server).  The list I removed 'rsync' from was a list of backends
> that require a hostname.
> >
>
> well done.. thx ede
>
> --
>
> https://code.launchpad.net/~mterry/duplicity/backend-unification/+merge/216764
> You are subscribed to branch lp:duplicity.
>

-- 
https://code.launchpad.net/~mterry/duplicity/backend-unification/+merge/216764
Your team duplicity-team is requested to review the proposed merge of lp:~mterry/duplicity/backend-unification into lp:duplicity.