[Box Backup-dev] Moving trunk to release

[Ben Summers]

On 6 Jan 2006, at 21:40, Chris Wilson wrote:

>
>> * Type changes: review, test, merge
>
> I've split this into two parts:
>
> Fundamental type changes and missing includes, which might break  
> some platforms, but look correct to me, can be seen with:
[snip]

I will have a look at these shortly.

It'd also be nice if the developers can check out these branches and  
try them out when they've got a moment on their test machines.


>
>> * Boxi integration? (Chris said he wanted to do something, but I  
>> don't remember seeing specifics)
>
> There are two things I would like to see for Boxi, but I understand  
> that there isn't much time before the freeze, and I'm not expecting  
> them to make it into the trunk in time. They are:
>
> * The changes in http://bbdev.fluffy.co.uk/svn/box/chris/boxi/  
> merged into
>   trunk, including the separate command socket manager, which makes it
>   possible to abort an in-progress backup using the command socket.
>
> * Refactoring the parts of BackupDaemon which actually perform  
> backups out
>   of BackupDaemon. They are SetupLocations(), SetupIDMapsForSync(),
>   DeleteUnusedRootDirEntries(), and the iterator that calls
>   mpDirectoryRecord->SyncDirectory(). The reason for this is that I  
> have
>   to almost duplicate that code in Boxi, and I would like to share  
> as much
>   code as possible with Box Backup, but I can't have a BackupDaemon
>   object. These changes haven't been written yet.

I'm not 100% convinced by this approach. I would be much happier if  
bbackupd could be controlled over the command socket, and return  
enough information so you don't have to do any backup work in the  
daemon. It doesn't feel quite right to have two processes doing the  
same thing, especially when one is a UI process.

>
>> * Logging
>
> I may not have time to get this done before the feature freeze, sorry.

That's OK. Next release. As Martin points out, there's a lot of good  
stuff there already, and it's more important to get a release out  
than every feature.

>
>> * Test on all platforms
>>
>> Can I have volunteers to test on platforms, who will sign off a  
>> platform for the release?
>
> I don't know exactly what you are expecting for platform tests, or  
> whether you would consider me qualified to sign off, but I'd be  
> happy to test and sign off on Win32.

I've updated the release plan page

   http://boxbackup.hostworks.ca/index.php/Release_plan

but basically, just knowing the tests run is fine by me. I think  
they're comprehensive enough to be a reasonable indication that it  
works.

However, without the automated tests under Win32, it's more complex.  
I'm sure you're more than qualified to signoff, but I would really  
appreciate a test "script" being written, and confirmed everything is  
working by at least two people on Win32.

   http://boxbackup.hostworks.ca/index.php/Win32_test_script

I hope that, at some point, the Win32 port can be more of a first  
class citizen, but for the moment I think we're just going to have to  
hope that manual testing catches everything.

Ben