Jon Radel wrote: > I was nodding my head in agreement to your message until the very end of > this. This has come up before on the mailing list. If I understand the > OP correctly, his primary desire is that dirvish apply a higher level > understanding of the "value" of a given backup and expire based on this, > rather than "mindless" application of the expiry date assigned at backup > time. > > The classic example I remember from some years ago was the person who > was terribly bent out of shape that after his disk failed dirvish > continued to delete images until he was left with a single image. It > had been successful, but it was very far from being the latest image at > the time of failure.
I definitely agree that it is sensible to keep the latest image, but I think that's what dirvish is supposed to do. There's a comment in dirvish-expire that says: ## WARNING: don't mess with the sort order, it is needed so that if ## WARNING: all images are expired the newest will be retained. Are we saying that the code doesn't match the comment? Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
