From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: vnstat 2.6 - (was: Re: [PATCH] tmux: Update to 3.1)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:13:41 +0100
Message-ID: <0CD1DE90-D72E-4063-893B-DDC8132B4CF2@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <892cf7c4-b206-4fa4-6188-16f748f53767@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7175947650080593412=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============7175947650080593412==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

> On 25 Apr 2020, at 12:26, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi Michael,
>=20
> On 25.04.2020 10:07, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> Reviewed-by: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>
>>=20
>> Thank you!
>>=20
>> -Michael
>>=20
>>> ...
>=20
> No problem - it just came my way... ;-)
>=20
> Besides: I'm thinking about the (8?) update patches for 'vnstatn 2.6'.
>=20
> These are quite a few, because - as you know - it took me some time to
> get the initscript right. And one commit
> (https://patchwork.ipfire.org/patch/2936/) even has the wrong subject.
>=20
> Nevertheless, its running without problems since then. Today I deleted
> the no longer needed files from '/var/log/vnstat/' ('.blue0', '.green0',
> '.red0'). The new file, 'vnstat.db' takes about 250KB at the moment and
> is staying there.

It is best if you write these things as a response to the original patch, bec=
ause they will then appear in the history of patchwork.

But in general, I would recommend that this is being merged into next and we =
test it with more users.

> But: should I send a new patch series for this update?

Why? To clean up the mess? I would leave this for Arne. If he can work it out=
 then not. Otherwise, a new patch series is probably the easier.

Best,
-Michael

>=20
> Best,
>=20
> Matthias


--===============7175947650080593412==--