documentation for why long incremental chains are bad
Bug #1031610 reported by
az
This bug affects 1 person
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicity |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Unassigned | ||
| duplicity (Debian) |
Fix Released
|
Unknown
|
|||
Bug Description
this is a forward of debian bug #677215, which lives over there: bugs.debian.
the original submitter had a 300+ long incremental chain, and was surprised badly that duplicity
ate all his space in /tmp on restore (see http://
given my counter that long incremental chains are a bad idea, the submitter suggested that
the docs spell this out better - and i concur: the manpage says way too little about the
nature of incrementals, that they're deltas against previous inc's, or that long chains are neither
efficient to restore nor overly robust.
regards
az
Revision history for this message
| Kenneth Loafman (kenneth-loafman) wrote | #1 |
| Changed in duplicity: | |
| status: | New → Fix Committed |
| importance: | Undecided → Medium |
| milestone: | none → 0.8.21 |
| Changed in duplicity (Debian): | |
| status: | Unknown → Confirmed |
| Changed in duplicity: | |
| status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
| Changed in duplicity (Debian): | |
| status: | Confirmed → Fix Released |
To post a comment you must log in.
Just added a FAQ entry, https:/