was only talking about this one, because we encountered it now ;) .. will you, should i, anybody wants to step forward to turn it into a proper error?
ede/duply.net
On 01.07.2011 20:58, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> Yes. Been trying to replace them as I encounter them.
>
> Problem is that, at present, there are 186 of them in the distributed code. Major work.
>
> ...Ken
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:01 PM, <
address@hidden <mailto:
address@hidden>> wrote:
>
> still these assertions are bad style. could we agree to make them speaking errors that tell what is the problem?
>
>
> On 01.07.2011 18:44, Michael Schneider wrote:
> > In fact, I had several duplicates (vol 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, but not vol 53 and 54:
> >
> > Fo reach duplicate volume, one was empty and one was correct. The empty ones look like this:
> >
> > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7249155798656478530==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: v2 Subject: duplicity-inc.20110614T181901Z.to.20110619T192531Z.vol48.difftar.gpg --===============7249155798656478530== Content-Type: application/binary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 --===============7249155798656478530==--
> >
> > I have no idea why only 5 of 54 volumes where affected. It seems (list order in my client) that the empty sets were created after the correct ones.
> >
> > Deleting the empty files resolved the problem.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Duplicity-talk mailing list
> > address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>