Bug 1328662 - TIMELINE_LIMIT_WEEKLY ignored
Summary: TIMELINE_LIMIT_WEEKLY ignored
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: snapper
Version: 7.2
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Ondrej Kozina
QA Contact: Cluster QE
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-04-20 01:16 UTC by prasun.gera
Modified: 2021-09-03 12:39 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-04-20 11:50:18 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description prasun.gera 2016-04-20 01:16:29 UTC
Description of problem:

TIMELINE_LIMIT_WEEKLY is ignored although the config file has it. Googling for the problem took me to http://h20564.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=mmr_kc-0127682 , which states that this hasn't been pulled in from upstream. Can this be back-ported to RHEL 7.2 ? 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): snapper-0.1.7-10.el7.x86_64


How reproducible: Easily


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Set TIMELINE_LIMIT_WEEKLY in the config

Actual results:
No weekly snapshots taken

Expected results:
Last n weekly snapshots should be preserved where TIMELINE_LIMIT_WEEKLY=n

Additional info:

Comment 2 Alasdair Kergon 2016-04-20 01:57:55 UTC
We can consider this for 7.3 through a version upgrade.

For 7.2 we would need two things:

1) we'd have to determine whether or not it's a low-risk and straightforward backport;

2) we'd need some justification explaining why this is absolutely necessary because, on the face of it, this looks like a new feature which we would not normally consider as a 'fix' to an already-shipped release.

Comment 3 prasun.gera 2016-04-20 02:18:50 UTC
Yes, 7.3 would be great too.

Comment 4 Ondrej Kozina 2016-04-20 11:50:18 UTC
We aim to rebase snapper package in RHEL7.3 release. Probably to current upstream version. See bug 1250371.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.