Should 2.0.2.19 be promoted to the experimental channel?

Releases
21

Heh, it wasn’t actually a test. A client’s backup drive filled using Windows backup so I decided to switch them to Duplicati.

And yes, I know it’s canary - and yes, I still feel confident it will work as needed. :slight_smile:

22

Anything that could replicate an issue and could provide data about the issue is a test in my book :slight_smile:

Just check the filters :wink:

23

2 posts were split to a new topic: OS level filters

26

Sorry to you and all people)) I search files on D1 path, not D2).

So, v19 must be experimental!)

27

8 posts were split to a new topic: Missing AlphaVSS.x64.dll error on clean install

31

I vote for 3032. Live logs are visible again in Chrome but otherwise things have gotten worse.

1 Like
34

#3032 is fixed by a super tiny update #3033, so it should be easy to include that :slight_smile:

1 Like
35

I have lost the overview as it always happens when we scramble to get a release ready :slight_smile:

I have updated the milestone with some minor tweaks: 2.0.3 experimental Milestone · GitHub

Should we have a go at fixing those issues, or roll with 2.0.2.19?

1 Like
36

It’s not easy :slight_smile:

I think we’re close once we merge #3052 and fix #3055. I feel like we’ve been quite a few people testing the retention policy without anything blowing up :slight_smile:

1 Like
37

Wow, #3055 is now fixed!

3 Likes