forced backup without special name

[svasti]

Hi
I found that it is not possible to make a backup via the backend without entering a special name. I needed that function, e.g. in the cmsimple-xh.org site, when editing different languages, as up to now only one language will get a backup (may change in 1.6.2). So I thought, just make a backup via the backend. Grrr, javascript insisted on a name for the backup, but I wanted a standard backup without special name.

I propose to allow backup without special name.

[cmb]

I propose to allow backup without special name.

Do you propose it only, if we don't change the behavior of the automatic backups, or do you think it's reasonable anyway?

[svasti]

I think it's reasonable anyway. Say, I am not sure a certain change whould be good, so I first make a backup. However what if I don't want to keep it indefinitely? Making a backup with special name means, I'd have to delete it eventually manually. Standard backup means, I have it for a certain time, and can forget about it.

I think the javascript alert should remain together with the prefilled input field — but if the user deletes this input field and saves, it seems to me, he really wants standard saving without any special name.

[cmb]

JFTR: done by svasti (r1324).

[Tata]

I often do a copy of files. In OSX they automatically get "copy_" prefix. Would it be bad to set thing so that:
1. if no name is given, only standard backup is made
2. if a name is given, both standard and special named backups are made.

[cmb]

if no name is given, only standard backup is made

That is already implemented for XH 1.6.3.

if a name is given, both standard and special named backups are made.

Um, why having two backups of the same content?

[Tata]

if no name is given, only standard backup is made

That is already implemented for XH 1.6.3.

if a name is given, both standard and special named backups are made.

Um, why having two backups of the same content?

Because the standard is deleted one day anyway. The renamed would remain, however, to be evtl. used in the future, if needed.

[cmb]

Because the standard is deleted one day anyway. The renamed would remain, however, to be evtl. used in the future, if needed.

Yes, but why would we need a second standard backup. As it's now (TRUNK), a user can choose whether he want's a standard backup (YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS_content.htm) or an extra backup (YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS_CHOSENNAME.htm). I think that is sufficient.

[Tata]

I mean - just to keep one of backups for some future use without the risk that the file will be deleted by the system. If I decide to name a backup, I'll get a file YYYYMMDDHHMMSS_content.htm. But I also can decide to habe a file YYYYMMDDHHMMSS_MYBACKUP_content.htm for future use or to be deleted once by myself. Now, if I use some "restore" plugin, it will look for standardly named file and make the restoration. MYBACKUP remains untouched.

[svasti]

Just do 2 backups in 1.6.3 right after another, one without name and one with a name.