From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fischer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: vnstat 2.6 - Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:06:16 +0200 Message-ID: <1dd1a950-335e-6a97-64f8-d34e82f3f49a@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: <0CD1DE90-D72E-4063-893B-DDC8132B4CF2@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3383344779018824515==" List-Id: --===============3383344779018824515== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On 27.04.2020 14:13, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hi, >=20 >> ... >>=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. >=20 > It is best if you write these things as a response to the original patch, b= ecause they will then appear in the history of patchwork. >=20 > But in general, I would recommend that this is being merged into next and w= e test it with more users. >=20 >> But: should I send a new patch series for this update? >=20 > Why? To clean up the mess? I would leave this for Arne. If he can work it o= ut then not. Otherwise, a new patch series is probably the easier. >=20 > Best, > -Michael > ... Ok, I'll let Arne decide. Best, Matthias --===============3383344779018824515==--