X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= default; b=mkNRm2L1gSEF4s8vHJl3cvfBl0kPp2AJACSZ7RSlj5r4zJmGO+GBe eUUnMAmzF47+bsZrF298z8wom487Q7bdqqPLveS1gUUQiDN/KBvzCua2kLiaO12w JIZ6TMLqJat3tQe3GPAwKgxpU5aShLgYOvT5qsXzIFC2MqC3ULy0vU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=eLsHjn4KanYoMi3t8z2l/gaOBhk=; b=hZ/ISOOT2iELtMvOtI8YKCSs0V0h p1HZ+ZiWuw8AayyqODoXp2ne9ZsZGp75Qs0j9X/DHKMwu9ZCLe3I1Vozlyy3cIW7 R8tBzP8CoMUfzRnE/22RxS0PhDvphpSnhQzSQRDyjc/sd9Igws9BvZAbGZxqsFX+ FTgwmOfdkVne36I= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: plane.gmane.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Paul Subject: Re: workflow idiom to compare zip/tgz with folder subtree Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <97783140 DOT 20150922161211 AT yandex DOT ru> <6E467703-38A3-4128-ACEE-26D0F75678D0 AT etr-usa DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes Eliot Moss wrote: > There are also various backup tools based on rsync and compression. > One of these is called duplicity, and it supports encryption as > well. But I suspect there are a number of these and that you can > find one that matches your task ... Andrey Repin wrote: > It seems he need comparison over reservation. I don't know of any > backup tools that offer differential view against backup content. > Not that I know many backup tools, though... Warren Young suggested: fossil Thank you all. I've perused and pondered. There is a key constraint that I neglected to mention. I am shuttling incremental work back and forth between two locations using disc. At one of the sites, the only possible tools are M$ Office and a snapshot of Cygwin. The full copy of the working hierarchy exists at the two sites (almost identical). The more restrictive site is the authoritative home of the historical snapshots, though I may have mini-snapshots at the alternative site. The comparison of the working file hierarchy with snapshots lets me vet what needs to be shuttle back and forth; the majority of the differences will not be relevant as the hierarcy exists at both sites. I use the same archival scheme for local snapshots and for shuttling work between sites, though the content is not the same (I won't take an entire local snapshot with me on disc most of the time). Most of the files are not software, though parallels can be drawn: Long SQL scripts, Matlab scripts, images, data files, VBA, Matlab files, text files, LaTeX files, image files, and M$ Office files (Access, Excel, Word, Powerpoint, PST). This is not a development environment, it is an analysis environment (with code hackery to that end). However, the evolution of files and version control requirements probably overlap (I can only guess as I've never worked in a regulated code development environment, relying instead on my own adhoc snapshots & incrementals). One differences from the days when I wrote "real" (compiled) code is that I'm not just archiving source code; some of the files are images, databases, etc., and take up a lot of space. I end up creating incrementals a lot more, or simply leaving the big files out of the snapshot routine (relying on very old snapshots). My analysis strategy is strongly influenced by this; I try to avoid computational approaches that rely on intermediately generated data that need to be archvied. As much as possible, everything should be quickly generatable from raw client input data files. Been able to get away with that so far, with a great deal of effort. I rely alot on bash hackery, even though I'm no graybeard. "find", "diff -qr", and "xargs" are indispensible, and using vim window splitting, it is very efficient to browse the diff output and warp to discrepant text files, and even delve into zip files to open its content, and then use vimdiff to cruise the discrepancies. The synergy between vim & bash are (to me) like magic, scripting up copies and such and piping them to bash. For the most part, however, you need to unpack the snapshot (or rebuild it from incrementals). Andrey is right, the main thing causing me to put the question out there is the desire to avoid this. I noticed that fossil & cvs are part of cygwin. I will have to bite the bullet & try a few baby steps at some point. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple