> I have several patches that I'm planning to check in soon (I'm waiting > to see if we have any post-release tweaking to and/or branching to do). > This list is off the top of my head, but I think it is complete:
And I have several things I would like to work on and submit: - Fix the MD4 block and file checksums to comply with the rfc (currently MD4 is wrong for blocks of size 64*n, or files longer than 512MB). - Adaptive first pass checksum lengths: use 3 or more bytes of the MD4 block checksum for big files (instead of 2). This is to avoid almost certain first pass failures on very large files. (The block-size is already adaptive, increasing up to 16K for large files.) - Resubmit my --fixed-checksum-seed patch for consideration for 2.6.x. - Resubmit my buffering/performance patch for consideration for 2.6.x. - For --hard-links it is only necessary to send <dev,inode> for files that have at least 2 links. Currently <dev,inode> is sent for every file when the file list is sent. In a typical *nix file system only a very small percentage of files have at least 2 links. Unfortunately all the bits in the flag byte are used, so another flag byte (to indicate whether <dev,inode> is present) would be necessary with --hard-links (unless someone has a better idea). This would save sending up to 7 bytes per file (or actually as many as 23 bytes per file for 64 bit <dev,inode>). Except for the last, all these items were discussed in this group over the last few months. The first two items and last item require a bump in the protocol number, so I would like to include all of them together. But before I work on these I would like to make sure there is interest in including them. Craig -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html