Re: [Duplicity-talk] remove-all-but-n-full needs --force?

[Kenneth Loafman]

Andrew Kohlsmith (lists) wrote:
> On December 11, 2008 09:30:28 am address@hidden wrote:
>> Actually deleting is a serious action and should require an explicit
>> 'yes' somewhere.
>> I think the general double function (to list only or also to delete) of
>> remove-... commands is the real problem here.
>>
>> 2 solutions possible:
>> a) separate the command in two - remove vs. list
>> b) document the need to use the --force option (better)
>>
>> I like b) because it keeps duplicity straight forward  and I doublechecked
>> http://duplicity.nongnu.org/duplicity.1.html
>> where I couldn't find explicit notes on the need of --force for remove &
>> cleanup actions. These should be added. Also in the overview at the top
> 
> I like the a) option.
> 
> remove-all-but-n-full 1 should remove.
> 
> Or, alternatively, and I still don't like this
> 
> remove-all-but-n-full 1 should list by default and --remove to actually 
> remove.
> 
> Duplicity should not treat its users as if they were children.  This is like 
> the Redhat idiocy that forces confirmation of rm when you're root.

All the distros seem to alias rm that way.  Given the number of ex
Windows users that seem to be converting, I would not say anyone was a
child, just a new user.  If you know enough to use root, you should know
how the change the alias to your liking.

A lot of the decisions we have to make on functionality have to be
traded off against historical use.  If a user were to be upgraded via
the automatic update function of his distro, we really don't want to
have any surprises that would delete backups.

...Ken

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature