On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:15:34PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote: > However, a more discreet and much more robust solution would be for > the client and server to negotiate whether to incrementally recurse > just after negotiating the protocol version.
Yeah, I agree that it is better for the client to explicitly tell the server what is going on (and allows a batch file to indicate what is happening too). That way there is no confusion. It also allows for future expansion in certain situations -- e.g. I can imagine making a future version of --prune-empty-dirs and/or --delay-updates compatible with inc-recursion, and this will allow a more modern rsync to try to tell a remote receiver to use that option and stay in inc_recurse mode, and the receiver can say "no, I don't support that". The CVS version (and latest nightly) have this fixed. ..wayne.. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
