-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric Wilhelm wrote: > 1. Why can't rsync's exclude syntax do this? <snip> > That implies that (if anything), dirvish should simply be trying to > provide a nicer way to manage include/exclude rules. However, maybe an
I disagree. The exclude rules approach is inefficient and difficult to get right. It is inefficient because rsync is having to check exclude lists constantly and as the amount of excludes grows so does the time spent in said operation. All we want is to include a few directories deep within the tree. For that we are having rsync exclude ALL the other directories. It seems like an abuse of the exclude lists feature and it's very difficult to understand. Look at the NON working example given in the rsync man page + /some/path/this-file-will-not-be-found + /file-is-included - * Compare that to the working example + /some/ + /some/path/ + /some/path/this-file-is-found + /file-also-included - * There's not much difference visually but functionally it's huge. The alternative approach of adding a new feature by making dirvish a little smarter will make the program easier to use and be more efficient. I'll use the example pointed out in this post: http://www.dirvish.org/pipermail/dirvish/2006-October/001050.html "So your exclude section would look something like this: + /etc + /root + /var + /var/log + /var/log/x - - /var/log/ - - /var/ - - /* " Compare this in verbosity and complexity to a new feature. something like this: paths: /etc /root /var/log/x The second example is very clear. We know exactly what's going to happen at a glance. These paths will be synced and placed in the correct locations in the tree. In addition it should be very easy and efficient to make dirvish sync only those paths. Either by making 3 calls to rsync or by using the relative option. Now lets look at using multiple rsync sources on a remote host--which you mention in your followup. The dirvish syntax does not allow this. It seems implausible to extend the tree option. That means a new option must be created anyway. And wouldn't new options be needed to improve the exclude handling also? Why not improve dirvish overall by creating simple, understandable, options? - -- JT Moree -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGFoMRFI6sVJUR1B8RAvzLAJ9028QgQw7h3COjBTYGSn0rKskavwCdE8eK KFZsyFf67B+v8o27siaUk6E= =a1ZM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
