On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 05:08:05PM -0700, Carl E. Thompson wrote:
> If this is the desired behavior of "--inplace" then the documentation
> is misleading at best.
Yes, the documention of that option was unclear that it was talking
about an update for a transferred file. I've checked-in some
impro
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 17:08 -0700, Carl E. Thompson wrote:
> This also appears to be counter to the man page description of the
> "--inplace" option which states
>
> This causes rsync not to create a new copy of the file and then
> move it into place.
>
> This implies of course that if the "-
Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 06:25:36PM -0700, Carl E. Thompson wrote:
>
>> This patch causes rsync to honor the absence of the "--inplace" option
>> for permission, owner and group changes.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, that's not what the --inplace option is for. Its purpose
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 06:25:36PM -0700, Carl E. Thompson wrote:
> This patch causes rsync to honor the absence of the "--inplace" option
> for permission, owner and group changes.
Unfortunately, that's not what the --inplace option is for. Its purpose
is to control how data updates occur, not a
Hello,
Attached is a patch to version 3.0.2 to correct what I believe to be
a bug and serious problem in rsync. This patch causes rsync to honor the
absence of the "--inplace" option for permission, owner and group
changes. This patch is a greatly simplified version of Matt McCutchen's
excell
