[Dirvish] dirvish-runall before dirvish-expire

[Dave Howorth]

Paul Slootman wrote:
> I'm wondering whether the && should be replaced by a simple
> semicolon; if the expire fails for whatever reason, then I would
> still like dirvish to try and make new backups.

In practice, I've never seen dirvish-expire fail, except when there was
some problem that would also stop dirvish-runall, so I suspect the
difference is moot. I guess one's attitude depends how vital taking a
backup is versus how easy to clean up the mess when something goes wrong.

> (I don't know whether failures in individual image backups get passed
> on through dirvish-runall, I haven't checked the code.)

I don't know either :) It's not normally an issue, but would be if the
running order were reversed.

Cheers, Dave