duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[edgar.soldin@xxxxxx]

this was off-topic.. again webdav related which makes sense on the list. time for a new thread i guess.
i agree wrt. testing though.. ede

On 19.05.2014 13:24, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> They all get filed somewhere.
> 
> We started with duplicity-team and this is not a topic that would hold a lot of interest for the general user.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:16 AM, <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx <mailto:edgar.soldin@xxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>     any reason why not to file it in the public archives? ..ede
> 
>     On 19.05.2014 13:13, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
>     > Just moving the discussion back to duplicity-team.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Michael Terry <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     On 18 May 2014 13:29, <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx <mailto:edgar.soldin@xxxxxx> <mailto:edgar.soldin@xxxxxx <mailto:edgar.soldin@xxxxxx>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >         manual duplicity works on full, collection-status but fails on incremental call
>     >
>     >
>     >     Noted.
>     >
>     >
>     >         > The second error there looks similar, in the sense that a get() call failed to download the file.  I've seen bugs filed against 0.6.x that look similar.
>     >         >
>     >
>     >         don't believe it to be a lingering bug from 0.6
>     >         this is reproducable only with 0.7 branch against an account that i can use properly w/ 0.6.x , reproducably ;P
>     >
>     >
>     >     My brain was thinking of bugs 1177381 and 710198.  But yeah, this error is different.
>     >
>     >     I'll have a look later.
>     >
>     >     -mt
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Duplicity-talk mailing list
>     >     Duplicity-talk@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Duplicity-talk@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:Duplicity-talk@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Duplicity-talk@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>     >     https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>     >
>     >
> 
>