Skip to content

Add --container-subvolume-relpath flag for init#61

Open
muir wants to merge 2 commits intomasc3d:masterfrom
muir:master
Open

Add --container-subvolume-relpath flag for init#61
muir wants to merge 2 commits intomasc3d:masterfrom
muir:master

Conversation

@muir
Copy link

@muir muir commented Feb 21, 2021

This is to allow the same source to be backed up to multiple destinations

This is to allow the same source to be backed up to multiple destinations
@masc3d
Copy link
Owner

masc3d commented Feb 22, 2021

is it really necessary to be fully customizable path?

I would much prefer to support multi-destination via names, path convention and a more concise / intuitive option than --container-subvolume-relpath eg.

ref. #9

@masc3d
Copy link
Owner

masc3d commented Feb 22, 2021

how about

  • -n --name backup name
  • local subvol .sxbackup-$name

@muir
Copy link
Author

muir commented Feb 23, 2021

how about

  • -n --name backup name
  • local subvol .sxbackup-$name

Would that also change the naming for the other destination backups?
Currently they're things like sx-20210221-065715-utc but would that become
$name-yyyymmdd-hhmmss-utc instead?

Would you like me to do that work? My python is quite rusty: this PR was the first I had touched it in 5 years.

@muir
Copy link
Author

muir commented Feb 23, 2021

I presume the destination must remain dest/.btrfs-sxbackup because otherwise you would have to specify the name with every command.

@masc3d
Copy link
Owner

masc3d commented Feb 23, 2021

Would that also change the naming for the other destination backups?
$name-yyyymmdd-hhmmss-utc instead?

each job should still have dedicated destination, so I don't believe it's necessary.
why would it be beneficial to include name in snapshot volumes?

Would you like me to do that work? My python is quite rusty: this PR was the first I had touched it in 5 years.

same here xD I don't need this feature, so it's up to you "how far" you want to go.
just want to make sure command line interface remains clean, as cleaning up later could be breaking change.

enhancing init as a first step will work just fine, no? this would be rather minimal change to your PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants