Re: Viewing Contacts

On Friday 12 December 2008 18:48:14 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Friday 12 December 2008, Anne Wilson wrote:
> >
> > The second thing that seems a cause for concern is that when I added
> > a record, std.vcf was backed up as std.vcf_5, not std.vcf_1 as
> > expected.  This is nonsensical, both in the context of its own
> > directory and the context of the original resource's directory.
>
> This behavior does make sense if the backups are created in ringbuffer
> fashion, i.e. the oldest backup is replaced by the new backup and all
> other backups are left untouched. (Think "Duck, duck, goose" [1].)
>
> If the backups were created in "finite queue" fashion then the creation
> of a new backup would require renaming all other backups. (Think belt
> conveyor.)
>
> Your observation indicates that KAddressBook uses a ringbuffer for the
> backups.
>
Ingo - there were no backups in that directory when I made the change.  Now 
there is std.vcf and std.vcf_5.  It still seemed illogical to me, so I browsed 
the directory on an older box, with more backups, and was surprised at what I 
saw -

std.vcf_1		07/07/08
std.vcf_2		16/09/08
std.vcf_3		30/07/08
std.vcf_4		18/09/08
std.vcf_5		11/07/08
std.vcf_6		25/10/08
std.vcf_7		06/07/08

I'm pretty sure that older versions ran the conveyor-belt system, so it looks 
as though the system has changed in recent versions.  This, of course, has 
implications for anyone needing to restore an older version, which thankfully 
is a rare occasion these days :-)

Anne




Anne

_______________________________________________
KDE PIM users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAklDjHcACgkQbMErw/n0TZpLeACfau3EbGy59S8W/stCd+x7C2D9
k0IAnRq2WF1RhKoG2jkVQh1UqRlvmdYt
=ydZU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----