[Box Backup] Box Backup 0.11rc2 on OS X 10.5

[Chris Wilson]

Hi Achim,

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Achim wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:51:16 +0000 (GMT), Chris Wilson <chris@qwirx.com>
> wrote:
>>> (re: directory timestamps and hard links)
>>
>> So far nobody has come to us and said that they need those features. A 
>> few people have asked about directory timestamps, but I think it's more 
>> because they were surprised that the directory listing in bbackupquery 
>> show 1970-01-01 rather than an actual time for directories.
>
>> OS semantics for directory timestamps on Unix are a bit weird. They 
>> change themselves when some properties of files in the directory are 
>> changed, but don't reflect the latest date of any file in the 
>> directory. I can't think of a program that uses them. The only 
>> application that I can think of that uses [hardlinks] is Dirvish, 
>> another backup application.
>
> What about non-Unix systems, e.g. Windows?

I don't know about the semantics for modification times of directories on 
Windows, but...

> Creation time is quite important for folders, for instance when sorting 
> projects (stored in folders!) by creation date. Sometimes we advise 
> clients to sort their projects and related data into current and 
> inactive projects, and creation dates and modification dates are an 
> important indicator, also on folder level.

... you make a good case for why creation times should be stored, at 
least.

As long as they don't change, this should actually be quite easy to 
implement. Implementing storage of modification times, on the other hand, 
may require changing the store format for directories, as they will have 
to allow new attributes to be applied to them (which are stored on the 
directory, not on its parent where the original stamp is stored).

> Basically, I am convinced that any backup solution (and in particularly 
> one that is so mature as Box Backup) should preserve as much existing 
> meta information as possible. The information is available, it does not 
> cost much to include it, and finally you never know what programs rely 
> on it, so why toss it away?

So far I have been working on the basis of this message:

http://lists.warhead.org.uk/pipermail/boxbackup/2008-February/004236.html

However, your point is taken, and I've created a new ticket (#55) to 
record this request and I intend to implement it when I have time. Having 
said that, I think that snapshots are a higher priority.

Cheers, Chris.
-- 
_____ __     _
\  __/ / ,__(_)_  | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK |
/ (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer |
\__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software |