# Should 2.0.2.19 be promoted to the experimental channel?

**URL:** <https://forum.duplicati.com/t/should-2-0-2-19-be-promoted-to-the-experimental-channel/2465>\
**Category:** Releases\
**Created:** [February 12, 2018, 9:22pm UTC](https://forum.duplicati.com/t/should-2-0-2-19-be-promoted-to-the-experimental-channel/2465 "2018-02-12T21:22:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pectojin](https://forum.duplicati.com/user_avatar/forum.duplicati.com/pectojin/32/1231_2.png) [@Pectojin](https://forum.duplicati.com/u/Pectojin)\
**Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 7:18pm UTC](https://forum.duplicati.com/t/should-2-0-2-19-be-promoted-to-the-experimental-channel/2465/15 "2018-02-13T19:18:30Z")

</div>

I took the liberty of tagging [Revise default backup filter UI · Issue #3030 · duplicati/duplicati · GitHub](https://github.com/duplicati/duplicati/issues/3030) to the experimental milestone because the filter is much too strict now.

Besides that I think we’re looking at:

- The issue with `--keep-time` and `--retention-policy` throwing not-that-user friendly ~~warnings~~ errors after upgrade (because they’re now mutually exclusive) [Release: 2.0.2.18 (Canary) 2018-02-11 - #11 by Tapio](https://forum.duplicati.com/t/release-2-0-2-18-canary-2018-02-11/2448/11)
- More testing of `--retention-policy` and preferably some Unit tests to verify edge cases etc as it’s hard to test many different cases with a feature that depends on time passing 🙂
- Problem selecting “Smart backup retention” in the Web UI ["Smart backup retention" causes error: Retention value must be more than 5 minutes · Issue #3010 · duplicati/duplicati · GitHub](https://github.com/duplicati/duplicati/issues/3010)

Additionally, @kees-z and I were discussing two alterations on `--retention-policy` that I think would make sense to add before retention policy was released to everyone to avoid confusion if added later. The first being a semantic `U` notation for `unlimited` (`U:1M` instead of writing `200Y:1M` and `1W:U` instead of `1W:0s`). And the second being a `K` notation for `keep` as there are some things you can’t do like `1M:1D` without risking ending up with just a single backup if your machine is offline for longer than a month. [New retention policy deletes old backups in a smart way - #51 by kees-z](https://forum.duplicati.com/t/new-retention-policy-deletes-old-backups-in-a-smart-way/2195/51)

> [@New retention policy deletes old backups in a smart way](https://forum.duplicati.com/t/new-retention-policy-deletes-old-backups-in-a-smart-way/2195/51):
>
> My main concern is a common use case like 1M:1D. If I choose this policy, my intention is that I have (around) 30 versions to choose from when doing a restore operation.
> 
> If my computer is switched of for 1 month (holiday), all backup versions are deleted except 1, resulting in destroying all file versions with doing nothing. I see this as a potential problem.

And we should have a couple of people running windows try and replicate the above problem with Duplicati Server not upgrading when using the windows installer. Not worth much pushing updates if no one gets them 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.duplicati.com/t/should-2-0-2-19-be-promoted-to-the-experimental-channel/2465)._