On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:43:01PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:01:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > What you should not do is run a public rsync server on CVS having a
> > protocol bump (current HEAD) unless you patch it to downgrade the
> > protocol version.
>
> That's a good idea, but keep in mind that the patch would involve more
> than just tweaking PROTOCOL_VERSION from 27 to a 26 in rsync.h. The
> code assumes that it can handle P.V. 27, so if the remote side says that
> it supports P.V. 27, the local side would interact using the new csum
> code, even if it told the remote side that it was only P.V. 26 (which
> would totally confuse the remote side). Thus, all the "remote_version"
> checks for 27 would have to be disabled as well in such a downgraded
> version of rsync.
You're right. Fooey! I was assuming we did a
remote_version = MIN(remote_version, PROTOCOL_VERSION)
but we don't.
Except during a protocol bump we effectively do that because
a given rsync wouldn't know to send a higher protocol than
it reports.
I'm thinking the protocol version MIN would be good to add,
it might not help for this cycle but would in future. This
also ties in with something i suggested earlier for the sake
of testing, a --protocol option to explicitly force a
downgrade.
--
________________________________________________________________
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
