Why is host/user/profile in the snapshot path?
Hello, the values "host", "user" and "profile" are not fixed in the settings/manage profiles dialog, but they are always used in the snapshot path. Does someone has an idea why it is that way? Is there a technical reason we this needs to be done? Would it hurt, if this fields would just disappear? Ignore backwards compatibility for this question. Related issues: "Allow customisation of the backup location path" <https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/issues/1795> "Allow disabling of Host/User/Profile etc nesting" <https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/issues/1304> Best, Christian Buhtz
Checking the dialog now, it appears that you can delete those values in the dialog, and they are removed from the resulting path. You can also edit them. This would allow keeping the same main directory amongst profiles while easily differentiating the subdirectory of each profile as you want. A benefit I see to having them included by default is that if the main directory is defaulting to something, you wouldn't want each profile to use that same default and mix the snapshots there. Automatically giving each new profile its own path protects against this. And for some people, the main directory might be a shared network location used by Back In Time running on multiple hosts or common to multiple users on a host, each with their own profiles. Either of those circumstances could lead to overlapping profile numbers if that were the only automatically-added path segment. I suspect this is the reason. Otherwise, too many users would only learn the hard way that they have to be sure to provide a unique snapshots directory for each profile (and devise a successful strategy for that). This way, it's safe and orderly by default. - Derek On Monday, September 9th, 2024 at 11:17 AM, c.buhtz@posteo.jp <c.buhtz@posteo.jp> wrote:
Hello,
the values "host", "user" and "profile" are not fixed in the settings/manage profiles dialog, but they are always used in the snapshot path.
Does someone has an idea why it is that way? Is there a technical reason we this needs to be done?
Would it hurt, if this fields would just disappear? Ignore backwards compatibility for this question.
Related issues: "Allow customisation of the backup location path" https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/issues/1795
"Allow disabling of Host/User/Profile etc nesting" https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/issues/1304
Best, Christian Buhtz _______________________________________________ Bit-dev mailing list -- bit-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to bit-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/bit-dev.python.org/ Member address: derek.veit@protonmail.com
Hello Derek, thanks for your comments. Sounds reasonable. And I also can not imagine how to remove those fields from the config without loosing backwards compatibility. ;) It might be an idea to add a checkbox in the settings dialog to easily disable that fields? Also there labels "host", "user", "profile" are a bit misleading. In the beginning I was thinking that I will break something if I modify that values in a way that they do not reflect the reality, e.g. adding a username that does not exist. Using host/user/profile as a default value is a good idea. But what this fields really are should be better explained somehow. Best, Christian
Hi team, On 10.09.2024 07:49, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
It might be an idea to add a checkbox in the settings dialog to easily disable that fields?
I agree with you both: Derek is right that it's a safe and sane default for shared backup locations. But we also have many users that will just use a single drive/partitions as their backup location, and never share it with other machines. This group probably wants to simplify the backup path, disabling the "host/user/profile" nesting.
Also there labels "host", "user", "profile" are a bit misleading. In the beginning I was thinking that I will break something if I modify that values in a way that they do not reflect the reality, e.g. adding a username that does not exist. Using host/user/profile as a default value is a good idea. But what this fields really are should be better explained somehow.
How about combining them into a single field? It could be pre-populated with real values for host/user/profile", but called "profile subfolder" or something and be freely editable (at least for a string that's a legal folder name). But I'm afraid that such changes have a high potential for breakage, especially with older setups. Cheers Michael
participants (3)
-
c.buhtz＠posteo.jp -
Derek -
Michael Büker