Paul Slootman wrote: > I'm wondering whether the && should be replaced by a simple > semicolon; if the expire fails for whatever reason, then I would > still like dirvish to try and make new backups.
In practice, I've never seen dirvish-expire fail, except when there was some problem that would also stop dirvish-runall, so I suspect the difference is moot. I guess one's attitude depends how vital taking a backup is versus how easy to clean up the mess when something goes wrong. > (I don't know whether failures in individual image backups get passed > on through dirvish-runall, I haven't checked the code.) I don't know either :) It's not normally an issue, but would be if the running order were reversed. Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
