rm/gc: update README and mention testing in bup-gc(1)

Signed-off-by: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>

diff --git a/Documentation/bup-gc.md b/Documentation/bup-gc.md
index 1088a8514f918b25ddd1851721168bc8ef8fa5d4..89ce6479529f5b704ce05c16c1b6e95324faf521 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/bup-gc.md
+++ b/Documentation/bup-gc.md
@@ -26,8 +26,12 @@ approaches.
 Typically, the garbage collector would be invoked after some set of
 invocations of `bup rm`.
 
-WARNING: This is one of the few bup commands that modifies your archive
-in intentionally destructive ways.
+WARNING: This is one of the few bup commands that modifies your
+archive in intentionally destructive ways.  Though if an attempt to
+`join` or `restore` the data you still care about after a `gc`
+succeeds, that's a fairly encouraging sign that the commands worked
+correctly.  (The `t/compare-trees` command in the source tree can be
+used to help test before/after results.)
 
 # OPTIONS
 

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 24a5e81ccf6f1693dc3098d8ac7366a04b323141..a5a87368f8d3e8179b59e8b557e1c9d5801519f4 100644 (file)
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -476,20 +476,17 @@ mailing list (see below) if you'd like to help.
     give the continuous-backup process a really low CPU and I/O priority so
     you wouldn't even know it was running.
 
- - bup currently has no way to prune *old* backups.
- 
-    Because of the way the packfile system works, backups become "entangled"
-    in weird ways and it's not actually possible to delete one pack
-    (corresponding approximately to one backup) without risking screwing up
-    other backups.
-   
-    git itself has lots of ways of optimizing this sort of thing, but its
-    methods aren't really applicable here; bup packfiles are just too huge.
-    We'll have to do it in a totally different way.  There are lots of
-    options.  For now: make sure you've got lots of disk space :)
+ - bup only has experimental support for pruning old backups.
+
+   While you should now be able to drop old saves and branches with
+   `bup rm`, and reclaim the space occupied by data that's no longer
+   needed by other backups with `bup gc`, these commands are
+   experimental, and should be handled with great care.  See the
+   man pages for more information.
 
-    Until we fix this, one possible workaround is to just start a new
-    BUP_DIR occasionally, i.e. bup-2013-10, bup-2013-11...
+   Unless you want to help test the new commands, one possible
+   workaround is to just start a new BUP_DIR occasionally,
+   i.e. bup-2013, bup-2014...
 
  - bup has never been tested on anything but Linux, MacOS, and Windows+Cygwin.