Matt McCutchen wrote: > > On 7/16/07, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 11:09:57PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote: > > > Furthermore, from April 27 to July 10, about 2.5 months passed > > > without any hanging bugs being found; then, on July 11, > Warren Oates > > > reported one. > > > > That was a brand new one that I introduced into the code when I > > tweaked the index numbering in incremental mode and failed > to update a > > second section of code that interpreted the index values. The hang > > bug cropped up right away in both my testing and in the > testing of at > > least one other person, and was quickly fixed. > > OK, I didn't realize that. > > > > This makes me worry that [...] it may nevertheless have a hanging > > > bug that will be found after it is released and create a serious > > > problem for some users. > > > > Such a thing is possible, but I don't think it is going to > be any more > > likely than a hang bug happening in prior versions. > > It seems to me that the incremental recursion is a much more > dramatic change to rsync than anything else I've seen while > I've been working with rsync and has the potential to > introduce lots of obscure bugs. > They may still all be found, but at least there are more > potential bugs than in previous versions. > > > And the user will > > always have the option of specifying --no-ir if they need to. > > I don't like this logic; rsync should work by default. > Instead of making users scratch their heads when something > goes wrong, I think it would be prudent to make --no-ir the > default in rsync 3.0.0. (I'm afraid that if you don't, some > distributions might.) Users who care about the improved > performance and are aware of the possible consequence of > instability could still pass --ir. Other users would enjoy > the numerous other enhancements in rsync 3.0.0 without the > chance of a bug in incremental recursion stopping the show. > Once incremental recursion has gone through a release or two > without any problems, I would make it the default. > > Matt
I follow this list, mostly as an outsider, but a point or so maybe worth considering. Version jumps from 2.6.9 to 3.0.0 (not to 2.6.10 or 2.7) You're probably ahead to start with the world-view you will want to have after whatever dust settles. Rsync is not just remote copy, I sometimes use it locally Because it is "better behaved" in odd places/situations And if it's slower, it's not enough slower to matter. Somehow I would expect several subtle changes in "expectations" Of what is considered a "normal" rsync transfer. Wild guess, but seems more likely to have a hang bug in prior versions if there is a significant shift in expectations. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html