On 2016-01-05 at 12:12:26 Dan Langille wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
> >
> > On 2016-01-05 at 15:01:11 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> >
> >> There is always the possibility of a bug in Bacula, but no one has
> >> reported one. It "sounds" like you are saying that somethi
> On Jan 5, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
>
> On 2016-01-05 at 15:01:11 Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
>> There is always the possibility of a bug in Bacula, but no one has
>> reported one. It "sounds" like you are saying that something is a
>> bug, but I am not sure.
>>
>> I based the Bacula
On 1/5/2016 9:01 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
There is always the possibility of a bug in Bacula, but no one has
reported one. It "sounds" like you are saying that something is a
bug, but I am not sure.
I based the Bacula algorithm on the ISO definition as it existed in
2000, and I never rememb
On 2016-01-05 at 15:01:11 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> There is always the possibility of a bug in Bacula, but no one has
> reported one. It "sounds" like you are saying that something is a
> bug, but I am not sure.
>
> I based the Bacula algorithm on the ISO definition as it existed in
> 2000, and I n
There is always the possibility of a
bug in Bacula, but no one has reported one. It "sounds" like you
are saying that something is a bug, but I am not sure.
I based the Bacula algorithm on the ISO definition as it existed
in 2000, and I never remember see
It seems to me that there is no Sunday in week 53 of 2015.
Best regards,
Kern
On 01/04/2016 10:03 AM, pietersnld wrote:
> pietersnld wrote
>> In the schedule resource the manual says:
>>
>> = w00 | w01 | ... w52 | w53
>>
>> So why didn't my backup run in week 53?
>> (Still a lot of time to fix
Peter Keller wrote
>
> On 01/04/2016 09:00 AM, pietersnld wrote:
>
>> Found the same in the source code (7.2)
>>
>> /*
>> * Given a Unix date return the week of the year.
>> * The returned value can be 0-53. Officially
>> * the weeks are numbered from 1 to 53 where week1
>> * is the week in
On 01/04/2016 09:00 AM, pietersnld wrote:
> Found the same in the source code (7.2)
>
> /*
> * Given a Unix date return the week of the year.
> * The returned value can be 0-53. Officially
> * the weeks are numbered from 1 to 53 where week1
> * is the week in which the first Thursday of the
Heitor Faria wrote
>> On 2016-01-04 at 10:46:46 Heitor Faria wrote:
>>
>>> > On 2016-01-04 at 09:01:44 Heitor Faria wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > Em 4 de jan de 2016, pelo 08:10, pietersnld <
>>> >> >
> pietersnld@.sourceforge
> > escrito:
>>> >>
>>> >> >> pietersnld wrote
>>> >>
>>> >> >>> In the
> On 2016-01-04 at 10:46:46 Heitor Faria wrote:
>
>> > On 2016-01-04 at 09:01:44 Heitor Faria wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Em 4 de jan de 2016, pelo 08:10, pietersnld <
>> >> > pieters...@users.sourceforge.net > escrito:
>> >>
>> >> >> pietersnld wrote
>> >>
>> >> >>> In the schedule resource the manu
On 2016-01-04 at 10:46:46 Heitor Faria wrote:
> > On 2016-01-04 at 09:01:44 Heitor Faria wrote:
> >
> >> > Em 4 de jan de 2016, pelo 08:10, pietersnld <
> >> > pieters...@users.sourceforge.net > escrito:
> >>
> >> >> pietersnld wrote
> >>
> >> >>> In the schedule resource the manual says:
> >>
> On 2016-01-04 at 09:01:44 Heitor Faria wrote:
>
>> > Em 4 de jan de 2016, pelo 08:10, pietersnld <
>> > pieters...@users.sourceforge.net > escrito:
>>
>> >> pietersnld wrote
>>
>> >>> In the schedule resource the manual says:
>> >>>
>> >>> = w00 | w01 | ... w52 | w53
>>
>> >>> So why didn't
On 2016-01-04 at 09:01:44 Heitor Faria wrote:
> > Em 4 de jan de 2016, pelo 08:10, pietersnld <
> > pieters...@users.sourceforge.net > escrito:
>
> >> pietersnld wrote
>
> >>> In the schedule resource the manual says:
> >>>
> >>> = w00 | w01 | ... w52 | w53
>
> >>> So why didn't my backup run
> Em 4 de jan de 2016, pelo 08:10, pietersnld <
> pieters...@users.sourceforge.net >
> escrito:
>> pietersnld wrote
>>> In the schedule resource the manual says:
>>>
>>> = w00 | w01 | ... w52 | w53
>>> So why didn't my backup run in week 53?
>>> (Still a lot of time to fix no week 53 until 201
pietersnld wrote
> In the schedule resource the manual says:
>
> = w00 | w01 | ... w52 | w53
>
> So why didn't my backup run in week 53?
> (Still a lot of time to fix no week 53 until 2016.)
>
> Pieter
Still not fixed after 6 years! (At least not in version 5.2.12 still need to
build a new
In the schedule resource the manual says:
= w00 | w01 | ... w52 | w53
So why didn't my backup run in week 53?
(Still a lot of time to fix no week 53 until 2016.)
Pieter
Marek Simon-2 wrote:
>
> Bacula follows the ISO 8601 specification. The first week of years is
> the first week that
Yes, but shouldn't backups ran in week 53???
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Marek Simon [mailto:marek.si...@trustica.cz]
Gesendet: Montag, 11. Januar 2010 14:35
Cc: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [Bacula-users] No Full backup in first weekend of january
Bacula fo
Bacula follows the ISO 8601 specification. The first week of years is
the first week that has the first Thursday in this year. The first
weekend was not in the first week of the year.
More in Bacula Documentation, Section Schedule Resource.
Marek
Fahrer, Julian napsal(a):
> I ve seen the same th
I ve seen the same thing at a customers site using 3.0.3
Mit freundlichem Gruß
Julian Fahrer
- Originalnachricht -
Von: Pieter (NL)
An: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Gesendet: Sat Jan 09 20:17:12 2010
Betreff: [Bacula-users] No Full backup in first weekend of january
Hi,
I no
19 matches
Mail list logo
