Em Fri, May 11, 2012 at 04:27:28PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:26:10AM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> > Em Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:53:41AM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> > > I actually disagree with #3929 though, now I think of it. The date of
> > > the daily/weekly
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:26:10AM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> Em Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:53:41AM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> > I actually disagree with #3929 though, now I think of it. The date of
> > the daily/weekly/monthly dirs is valueable, otherwise there is now way
> > to tell when the b
Em Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:53:41AM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:50:40PM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> > Em Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:45:08PM +0200, intrigeri escreveu:
> > > If the rsync handler is not in a good enough state on May 20th yet,
> > > I'll release backupninja 1
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:50:40PM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> Em Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:45:08PM +0200, intrigeri escreveu:
> > If the rsync handler is not in a good enough state on May 20th yet,
> > I'll release backupninja 1.0 *without* the rsync handler,
> > and upload it to Debian sid.
>
> Seems f
Em Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:45:08PM +0200, intrigeri escreveu:
> backupninja upstream and Debian maintainer hat on:
> I trust you to find a good long-term solution,
> but the backupninja 1.0 release is currently blocked
> by the remaining critical bugs in the rsync handler,
> and the Wheezy freeze i
Hi,
backupninja upstream and Debian maintainer hat on:
I trust you to find a good long-term solution,
but the backupninja 1.0 release is currently blocked
by the remaining critical bugs in the rsync handler,
and the Wheezy freeze is coming *soon*,
so I now need to set a clear deadline:
If the rsy
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:20:25PM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> If I understood correctly given the info above, weekly.1/ folder dates from
> "Feb 27 01:11" but metadata/weekly.1/rotated says it was rotated at "Thu 12
> Apr
> 2012 01:04:38 CEST".
>
> What really counts is the date from the metadata file
Em Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 03:13:23PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 02:01:45PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> > I can confirm that after applying the patch, backups seem to be running
> > again (first run with patch was Apr 7 00:36):
> >
> > # ls -l
> > total 40
>
Hello all,
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 02:01:45PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> I can confirm that after applying the patch, backups seem to be running
> again (first run with patch was Apr 7 00:36):
>
> # ls -l
> total 40
> drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Apr 9 01:12 daily.1/
> drwxr-xr-x 1
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:56:58AM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> Em Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 04:26:27PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> > I meant this differently. It just seems that if you make an error, e.g.
> > you set:
> >
> > rsync_options = --non-existing-bla --syntax-error-coming up
> >
> > an
Em Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 04:26:27PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:54:55PM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> > Em Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 02:01:45PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> > > What it IMO doesn't solve, is the fact that the handler gave a syntax
> > > error and probabl
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:54:55PM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> Em Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 02:01:45PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> > What it IMO doesn't solve, is the fact that the handler gave a syntax
> > error and probably returned and error code, but backupninja intepreted
> > this as "backup suc
Em Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 02:01:45PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> What it IMO doesn't solve, is the fact that the handler gave a syntax
> error and probably returned and error code, but backupninja intepreted
> this as "backup succesful". This worries me a bit.
I think that the only way to a
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 05:34:09PM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> Em Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 09:37:37AM +0200, intrigeri escreveu:
> > Please fix ASAP so we can release 1.0 :)
>
> This is top priority for me. :)
>
> I opened https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/3868 to deal with this
> new issue.
>
> Paul,
tags 654192 + fixed-upstream
thanks
Paul van Tilburg wrote (26 Mar 2012 05:53:29 GMT) :
> Yes, it works fine now!
Thank you for your help debugging this!
I merged rhatto's debian/654192 branch into upstream master.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrige
Hey all,
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:41:46AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> intrigeri wrote (03 Mar 2012 10:57:27 GMT) :
> > Paul van Tilburg wrote (28 Feb 2012 09:20:45 GMT) :
> >> Ok, I have unpatched and repatched with what you sent. Tonight the
> >> rsync backups already ran with the patch applied
Hi Paul,
intrigeri wrote (03 Mar 2012 10:57:27 GMT) :
> Paul van Tilburg wrote (28 Feb 2012 09:20:45 GMT) :
>> Ok, I have unpatched and repatched with what you sent. Tonight the
>> rsync backups already ran with the patch applied that you sent
>> yesterday; it was the first run I had without warn
Hi Paul,
Paul van Tilburg wrote (28 Feb 2012 09:20:45 GMT) :
> Ok, I have unpatched and repatched with what you sent. Tonight the
> rsync backups already ran with the patch applied that you sent
> yesterday; it was the first run I had without warnings! :)
Nice to read!
> However, it has to run
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:53:56AM -0300, rhatto wrote:
> Em Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 07:37:07PM -0200, rhatto escreveu:
> > This behavior looks very tricky to spot but your explanation makes sense.
> > One
> > way to test this possibility would be to update the metadata subtracting the
> > inter
Em Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 07:37:07PM -0200, rhatto escreveu:
> This behavior looks very tricky to spot but your explanation makes sense. One
> way to test this possibility would be to update the metadata subtracting the
> interval needed for the backup to take place, i.e, use the start time of the
>
Em Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:16:59AM +0100, Paul van Tilburg escreveu:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:39:55AM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
>
> Probably it though 26 Jan 03:17 was not 24 hours away and thus it
> replaced the backup. But say one has a monotonously growing backup,
> then the backup ta
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:39:55AM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> I did that. So, I had a backup run at 25/1 at 1:00, then I replaced the
> rsync handler and ran it at 10:09. Tonight, at 3:00 backupninja ran
> and this is the resulting metadata:
>
> # for x in */*; do echo -n "$x: "; head -1 $
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 01:47:39AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> Suggesting Paul to cherry-pick this or that isolated patch was not
> sufficient. Therefore, as an attempt to clear any confusion and allow
> me to report clear facts to the rsync handler upstream author (rhatto,
> Cc'd):
>
> Paul, c
23 matches
Mail list logo
