https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14371
--- Comment #7 from Wayne Davison ---
If you don't want something deleted on the receiving side, you need to protect
it via either a protect rule or an exclude rule. Using --delete-excluded just
turns all exclude rules into hide rules, which limits
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14371
Wayne Davison changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14371
Haravikk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Status|RESOLVED
Thank you, Sebastian.
> On 23 May 2020, at 13:37, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior via rsync
> wrote:
>
> On 2020-05-22 22:54:18 [-0700], Wayne Davison via rsync wrote:
>> Thanks for the optimizing patches, Jorrit! I've merged your latest changes
>> into the git master branch.
>
> Wouldn't it be bet
On Sat, 23 May 2020 10:21:31 -0700
Wayne Davison via rsync wrote:
> Adding optional support for openssl's crypto library is also a good
> idea.
There is also libressl to consider, if you're considering libraries.
Karl
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- R
On 2020-05-23 10:21:31 [-0700], Wayne Davison wrote:
>
> Adding optional support for openssl's crypto library is also a good idea.
I posted [0] openssl support with SHA1 support and asked whether openssl is
possible. At that time added md5 and I think md4. I received no feedback
bach then but if
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 4:37 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <
rs...@ml.breakpoint.cc> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to add support for a crypto library (like openssl)
> which would provide optimized algorithms for more than just one platform
> without the need to maintain it separately?
>
Adding o
On 2020-05-22 22:54:18 [-0700], Wayne Davison via rsync wrote:
> Thanks for the optimizing patches, Jorrit! I've merged your latest changes
> into the git master branch.
Wouldn't it be better to add support for a crypto library (like openssl)
which would provide optimized algorithms for more than
This is great! However, do you have access to a big-endian CPU? I'm
not sure how relevant this still is but I've read at some point that
xxhash might have produced different (reverse?) hashes on different
endian CPUs. It may be prudent to acutally test if that is the case
with this implementation o
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14371
--- Comment #5 from Haravikk ---
Oh, I see; so hide actually does what I need, you confused me with the mention
of not using --delete-excluded, as it actually seems to work just fine with a
mixture of hide and exclude rules for different items.
Th
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13082
--- Comment #5 from Ben RUBSON ---
Really nice additions, it looks promising, thank you very much Jorrit & Wayne !
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omit
That's excellent news!
On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 08:11, Wayne Davison via rsync
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:02 AM Bill Wichser via rsync <
> rsync@lists.samba.org> wrote:
>
>> Attached is the patch we applied [to add xxhash checksums]
>
>
> Thanks, Bill! I finally got around to finishing up
12 matches
Mail list logo
