Re: [attic] --dry-run
- Jonas Borgström
- 2014-02-19 @ 22:40
On 2014-02-19 03:07, Dan Christensen wrote:
> I like the replacement of "verify" with "extract --dry-run".
> A few ideas.
> A --dry-run option for prune would probably be useful for testing
> prune options, especially since they are a bit counterintuitive.
> And it would be very easy to implement, if none of the pruning
> was actually simulated. I can take a stab at it if you like.
That would be great!
> For create, I also think a --dry-run option could be useful. By
> default, it would mean that not much happened. But if -v is specified,
> then it would go through the specified paths and the exclude options,
> and list the files that would be included, which would help when
> creating exclude patterns. And if --stats was specified, it could
> actually simulate the de-duplication, and report back the usual stats.
> This sounds a bit trickier to implement, beyond what I could do.
Yeah, that could be useful. But the --stats part might not be worth the
> By the way, it's common to make -n a short form for --dry-run
> (e.g. rsync does this).
Agreed, I've added that now
> Oh, and since the UI is changed by the removal of "verify", maybe it's
> ok to rename the prune options without warning? Or should "verify" be
> translated into "extract --dry-run", with a warning?
I just pushed a change that makes the deprecated "attic verify" and
"prune --hourly|..." options work but logs a warning.