I asked JW Schultz about applying his qsort patch, and here is what he said. Can
anyone help us test this change? The patch is contained in his letter posted on
Feb 12th.
Do not apply it. I want it tested by someone with the right
framework to test duplicate removal. Further, i am not
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:17:47PM -0500, Paul Green wrote:
I asked JW Schultz about applying his qsort patch, and here is what he said. Can
anyone help us test this change? The patch is contained in his letter posted on
Feb 12th.
Do not apply it. I want it tested by someone with the
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:17:36PM -0800, Craig Barratt wrote:
I suspect (but haven't checked) that if a 2.5.5 receiver is talking to
a 2.5.6 sender then 2.5.5 will send the index for the 3rd file, which
will be null_file on 2.5.6.
Yikes, I think you're right. I think 2.5.6 should be changed
I fully agree with jw schultz's first and second issue, to his --delete
assumption and to the the point that lexical order does not matter.
This unfortunately does mean that a means of preserving
initial sequence must be incorporated or the qsort approach
to finding duplicates would have to be
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 01:00:35PM +0100, Thomas Osterried wrote:
I fully agree with jw schultz's first and second issue, to his --delete
assumption and to the the point that lexical order does not matter.
This unfortunately does mean that a means of preserving
initial sequence must be
This is a call for comments, regarding what you do expect when copying
multible source tree roots leading to the same directory root, using
rsync.
This problem may be discussed now, because in versions before
rsync-2.5.6, the algorithm for removing the so called duplicated files
was broken.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 05:27:51PM +0100, Thomas Osterried wrote:
This is a call for comments, regarding what you do expect when copying
multible source tree roots leading to the same directory root, using
rsync.
This problem may be discussed now, because in versions before
rsync-2.5.6, the
This problem may be discussed now, because in versions before
rsync-2.5.6, the algorithm for removing the so called duplicated files
was broken.
That's why we expect nobody used it anyway in earlier versions - but who
knows..
I agree it should be the last argument that wins, but as Wayne
