From 6b00b14942da246718326555f092cfc8d260a77d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:02:48 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] followup --- ...t_1_f0c7e97cc7697172afa87b372d4d9277._comment | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/fsck_--incremental-schedule_does_not_work_as_documented/comment_1_f0c7e97cc7697172afa87b372d4d9277._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/fsck_--incremental-schedule_does_not_work_as_documented/comment_1_f0c7e97cc7697172afa87b372d4d9277._comment b/doc/bugs/fsck_--incremental-schedule_does_not_work_as_documented/comment_1_f0c7e97cc7697172afa87b372d4d9277._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..9e29855639 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/fsck_--incremental-schedule_does_not_work_as_documented/comment_1_f0c7e97cc7697172afa87b372d4d9277._comment @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 1""" + date="2015-09-09T17:58:09Z" + content=""" +Until version 5.201508125, --time-limit didn't cause a clean shutdown, +and so the fsck database didn't get updated with the last files it checked. +This could result in up to 1000 files being checked over again the next +time the incremental fsck was run. + +I can't reproduce the problem you describe with the current version. +And your transcript seems to be showing the old version, which was known to +have this problem. Only reason I'm not closing this bug immediately +is you seem to have a new enough version on your mac to avoid the problem.. +but it's not clear to me if you're experiencing the problem on the mac. +"""]]