From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFCBF6079A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:13:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AC805A2A2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:13:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 3F960A295
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:13:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D89CE4516B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:13:20 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20201214150317.28734-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <47b74601-b22d-81dc-aefd-c5599bde5125@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:13:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/84.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201214150317.28734-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.068 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH storage] prune mark: correctly keep
 track of already included backups
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:13:51 -0000

On 14.12.20 16:03, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> This needs to happen in a separate loop, because some time intervals are not
> subsets of others, i.e. weeks and months. Previously, with a daily backup
> schedule, having:
> * a backup on Sun, 06 Dec 2020 kept by keep-daily
> * a backup on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 kept by keep-weekly
> would lead to the backup on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 to be selected for keep-monthly,
> because the iteration did not yet reach the backup on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 that
> would mark November as being covered.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> The PBS implementation is not affected by this as it uses two loops.
> I don't see how this would cause bug #3199 though...
> 
>  PVE/Storage.pm             | 11 +++++----
>  test/prune_backups_test.pm | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!