Relating to Versioning

[nunoleite]

Hi!
I'm asking for another option about Versioning. I don't know if it's already
implemented, but i find no option about it.
So, the thing is that now the Versioning permits do put in another folder
older versions of files and appends them the date.
Now if we choose Versioning and Limit 1, we only get one version per sync. If
we choose Limit and 2 we get two older versions saved. But if we don't choose
Limit it just works as if we had chosen Limit 1.

What i ask is...
What if choosing Versioning and don't chose "Limit", can it be saved a folder
just like the folder that is created when we choose recycled bin (FFS date) ?

So... What i'm asking is another option to have Versioning but within a
Folder, not changing the file names but on the top folder. Just like moving
the "FFS date" folder to the Versioning folder and possibly givning an option
to save the last x versons?
We will have the backup folder and the Versioning folder with sub-folders like
"FFS date" with older versions.
For now i'm doing this using this path "z:\backup_versions\%weekday%" and not
choosing "Limit" option. And like this i have one backup per week day. But in
this situation i don't need the date added to the file name.

So resuming, an option as it is now to limit by file version and another new
to limit backup version by folder (FFS date). So limit x last folders. Saving
the last x "FFS date" folders. Instead of deleting "FFS date" folder it moves
it to the versioning folder saving that last x.

I hope i have explained well my option. Hope you understand this.

Thanks
Nuno Leite

[nunoleite]

Hi! again.......

Example:
We will have normal backup folder
z:\backup\
|-docs
|-works
|-etc...

And the versions folders of the older files that where deleted or overwritten
(all without changing the name of files)
z:\backups_versions\
|-FFS 2012-10-01 22:00
|-docs
|-works
|-etc...
|-FFS 2012-10-02 22:00
|-docs
|-works
|-etc...
|-FFS 2012-10-03 22:00
|-docs
|-works
|-etc...

So just like moving the FFS folder instead of the recycled bin but to another
folder of our choice and limiting the number of last of that folders saved.

What do you think?

Thanks
Nuno Leite

[Zenju]

This is basically the < v5.7 naming convention for versioning.
From the feedback and discussions so far it seems there is a need to support
both the current and < v5.7 naming conventions:

[404, Invalid URL: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1093083&aid=3574471&group_id=234430]

Problem is what is the best design to accomplish this. The new "limit"
parameter heaviliy relies on a fixed naming convention which it can exploit to
gather a list of version for each file. On the other hand, supporting multiple
naming conventions demands more flexibility. So there's a little design
conflict to solve.

[nunoleite]

I agree. I'm glad that this being developed.

But in my opinion i think that would be best just to create 2 options in the
versioning:
- Versioning by Filename
- Versioning by Folder

Like this, i think it will separate things and it would be easier to develop
and easier for the user to choose and understand both options.

[wolfcry]

I believe you can still do versioning by folder by using macros. Try to append the below to your current delete folder

%date% %time%\

If we can get a script to remove the data/time information that is inserted by ver 5.8, we are back to per-5.8 ways of handling versioning

[nunoleite]

Yes, that's true. But like that i can't control how many versions to keep, and If i choose versioning, all the files are still renamed with date and time.

[jobz]

Does that mean you will add back <5.7 versioning scheme?

IMHO, new versioning scheme is not intuitive at all. First time I saw the renamed files, my reaction was, 'WTF, who moved my cheese!'. Renamed files creates mental barrier (if that's right phrase), to see what files are moved or overwritten. Sigh, I guess with all pgms, later versions become more 'sophisticated' to cater for more features, like nero, acronis true image, cintanotes, etc.

Before I go, I want to say thank you for creating such a good pgm, and for free as well.

P.S. Did config file format change in 5.6 and 5.7? I plan to rollback to 5.6.

[Zenju]

> later versions become more 'sophisticated' to cater for more features, like nero, acronis true image, cintanotes, etc.

These are all commercial applications which *have to* implement more features in order to have a selling point. FFS on the other hand does not have this burden.
If there's a design problem or a superior solution I have no problem removing features, and have done so repeatedly in the past. In the long run this allows for higher-quality solutions since none of the "old stuff" needs to be considered.
As for the naming convention discussed here, the last word is not spoken yet:
viewtopic.php?t=1827&p=7470#p7470