Re: [Duplicity-talk] idea on gpg zombies

[Nate Eldredge]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011, address@hidden wrote:

> On 29.06.2011 13:16, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> > Then again, the real fix is to not do long strings of incrementals.
> > We're trying to provide a fix for what is really an operator error.
>
> that's one way to look at it.
>
> but i can't agree with that. having endless incrementals is unsecure and 
> bad style, but totally possible and within the scope of duplicity. if it 
> would be a user error, it'd happen on all platforms _and_ duplicity 
> would try to prevent it. like the other comment said e.g. automatically 
> keeping chains short, by starting fulls after a certain amount of 
> incrementals.

I agree with Edgar.  I think there are situations where this is a 
perfectly reasonable thing to want to do.  Imagine a large dataset with 
frequent small changes that overwrite one another.  It may be 
important to save past backups for a long time, so that one can 
recover the data as it was at any time in the past.  However, there 
may not be enough backup space to store lots of full backups.  In this 
case the only good option is a single full backup plus lots of 
incrementals.

--

Nate Eldredge
address@hidden