FreeCAD Forum

catman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:22 am ...
Sad that it did not got merged. I think its a very useful and easy to understand feature.
...

The code is still there. So, if you want to revive this proposal, you have to do the work, fix the conflicts and all that.

vocx wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:26 pm The code is still there. So, if you want to revive this proposal, you have to do the work, fix the conflicts and all that.

I am not sure what conflicts you refer to. The last relevant post was from triplus

triplus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:16 am I did a few quick tests and this seem to work OK. All in all i feel your feature proposal is performing reasonably good now. When more users will enable to test and use it.

Never compiled FeeCAD but that seems to be required to be able to allow user testing. Maybe a good exercise.

catman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:48 pm I am not sure what conflicts you refer to. The last relevant post was from triplus

We are obviously talking about the unmerged pull request #1148.

If you look at it online, there are conflicts with the current code. This means the pull request cannot be merged as is right now. A developer that is interested in this needs to look at the code, fix the conflicts, and then it can be proposed again.

Obviously to test this you'd need to compile FreeCAD with the changes introduced by this pull request. But as it is now, it cannot be compiled, again, because of the "conflicts" in the code. You'd need to understand the C++ code, fix the conflicts, and then compile and test locally.

Compiling

Source code management

No need to waste your time on this. It's still planned to integrate the code but beforehand some refactoring is needed. As this is still of low priority for me I don't know when I take the time to do the work.

vocx wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:02 am

catman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:48 pm I am not sure what conflicts you refer to. The last relevant post was from triplus

We are obviously talking about the unmerged pull request #1148.

If you look at it online, there are conflicts with the current code. This means the pull request cannot be merged as is right now. A developer that is interested in this needs to look at the code, fix the conflicts, and then it can be proposed again.

Great. You are talking about compile conflicts only, not functional conflicts. I think that is very helpful to know. At least compile conflicts could be solved by someone familiar with C++ but not FreeCAD. Refactoring probably not, though...



Also thanks at @wmayer for your feedback, which means that the functionality itself is considered good idea and its pure technical issues to be solved yet. This bit was missing in this thread so far, I think.

Dear all,
if you plan to include this pull request, and only if you plan to do so, I can update and solve all conflicts. I should not have problem for that, the change is very simple.
I have been maintaining the pull request up to date for many months what took me some effort, and I do not want to waste my time any longer for nothing.

The change is not much:
- The management of the archives that takes the few new parameters.
- The edition of these parameters.
- The management of the parameters to save and restore these parameters.

Let me know when you are willing to accept it and I update it.

Regards
Pascal Garcia

I vote to include it

plgarcia wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:48 pm AdjustBackupNaming.png

Is there a placeholder for a prefix as well, so that the backup directory can be specified?

Sweet! Congrads to all involved!
Aaaaaaand.....it's Documentation time!

plgarcia wrote:

Just doing a cursory search on the wiki, doesn't return anything on backups except https://www.freecadweb.org/wiki/Prefere ... r#Document