* Martin Simmons schrieb am 06.10.08 um 22:04 Uhr:
> 
> If it hasn't been done already, it could be useful to consider how this
> affects the mental model that users have of the include/exclude algorithm
> (which is already a source of some difficulty).  This applies to the fstypes
> and drivetypes directives as well.
> 
> There are two things about these directives that make them different from
> others:
> 
> 1) The current implementation is within the Options clause, so the config can
>    potentially have more than one per fileset.  Is that desirable or does it
>    just over-complicate the issue?

Look a bit closer. Its not within the Options section. Currently its
in the Include section.

> 
> 2) The directories are excluded *after* being included in the backup according
>    to the Options matching.  In all other cases, an exclude cannot override a
>    matching include.
> 
> I may be less confusing to put the new directive at the top level of the
> fileset directive, outside any of the Include or Exclude clauses.


I voted for putting it into the Exclude section because this
directive is about *excluding* directories from the backup. So if
someone uses this directive it has the same effect then the "file =
/foo" in the Exclude section.

-Marc
-- 
BUGS My programs  never  have  bugs.  They  just  develop  random
     features.  If you discover such a feature and you want it to
     be removed: please send an email

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users