Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:44:42 -0600
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:39:21PM -0500, Derek Atkins was heard to remark:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:06:27PM -0500, Derek Atkins was heard to remark:
> > > I'm not convinced it should be changed.
> > There are occasional messages about getting rid of 'all those damend
> > copies' that motiviate this discussion, at least in part.
> Well, 1.7 has code in there that will remove all log/backup
> files older than N days... The default is 30, but the user can
> change them.
Ahh ... auto-pruning -- a new feature!
> > Autosaving would potentially generate even more backup copies.
> > Would it be reasonable to change the scheme so that there are fewer
> > backup copies, that are auto-pruned? Or is this a bad idea?
> I'm not convinced that auto-pruning is necessary.
> In fact, I would
> assert that you only need one autosave file during a session,
> regardless of how often it is auto-saved.
In gnotime, auto-save is combined with 'auto-backup' and 'auto-archive',
as it were. The file is saved, but so are copies that are a week,
month, year old.
(This needed in part because theere is no 'save' or 'open' menu item
in gnotime, the idea there being that 'it just works', and to minimize
the GUI complexity.)
I'd like to think this kind of 'archiving' feature is a stop-gap
until things like todays slashdot story on the 'non-heirarchical
document management system' becomes widespread and automates this
kind of file-management issue for us. I figure it might take years ...
pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <email@example.com>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933