Automatic Saving

[Derek Atkins]

linas@linas.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.

> 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[0] autosave file during a session,
regardless of how often it is auto-saved.

[0] During the autosave process you need two so you don't over-write
the last one, but then you unlink the last autosave after you
successfully re-save the autosave file again.  So there is only one
autosave file except during the autosave process.

> > I like the fact that I can
> > "exit without saving" and not have any data disrupted.  OTOH, I can
> 
> What if the autosave feature is optional?

Sure...

> > understand that people DO want to be able to have "interim saves" in
> > case of a crash, in which case the user should probably be prompted
> > whether to use the 'last-saved' or 'auto-saved' data.
> 
> Yeah, or whenever the 'normal' file is older than the autosave file.

Ok..

> --linas

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord@MIT.EDU                        PGP key available