On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:48:15PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:15:22PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > If i may ask, why this change?
>
> I appear to have accidentally left that out this time (though I did
> mention it long ago when discussing the fixes I wanted to make to the
> exclude code).
I figured you probably had but if i had forgotten so would
others.
> The big thing this does is to make "**" and "*" work correctly when used
> together. The current code makes an "*" work like "**" if there is a
> "**" somewhere else on the line.
Ahh, That wasn't entirely clear. Very good.
> I have also seen some buggy behavior in fnmatch()'s character-class
> handling, as mentioned below.
>
> > Does this introduce any changes in behavior of patterns?
>
> Besides bug fixes, it should not. The buggy behavior of '**'s effect on
> '*' was mentioned in the documentation, though, so it could affect some
> people.
I'll tell you what i'm thinking road map wise and you can
agree or disagree, and tell me i'm crazy.
I'd like 2.5.7 fairly soon containing:
cygwinhang patch -- if testing shows it to be safe
and effective.
Then i'm inclined to a 2.6.0 with these things that change
the user interface:
my keyword based report (verbosity) option.
This doesn't break anything and i have no
qualms with it going into 2.5.8
ssh as default -rsh transport.
This would affect users expecting rsh or remsh
This new pattern matching would fall into the changed UI
that might merit a minor version number increment.
I'm also wondering about the craigb-perf patch. Anyone know
how widely it has been tested?
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
