https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10449
Summary: Allow testing of supported parameter(s)
Product: rsync
Version: 3.1.0
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P5
On Τετάρτη, 18 Ιανουάριος 2012 4:58:21 πμ, Gang Chen wrote:
Hi, there,
We implemented a native win32 rsync client with auto synchronizer:
http://www.acrosync.net
We are currently looking for beta testers. If anyone is
interested, please post a request in the forum
Hi, there,
We implemented a native win32 rsync client with auto synchronizer:
http://www.acrosync.net
We are currently looking for beta testers. If anyone is interested,
please post a request in the forum (http://forum.acrosync.net) to receive a
download link.
Thanks,
Acrosync Team
--
and all those who have tested
and refined this. I confess I am one of the myriad freeloaders who
have been sitting back waiting for all of you to do the heavy
lifting. I am a frequent beta tester on many open source projects,
but I just don't have the guts to participate in such testing
I am running MacOS X 10.4.11 on PPC. The following is a synopsis of
my installation procedure (as gathered from the various emails in
the archive) - note that I had trouble with crtimes.diff and went
back to osx-create-time.diff. Please let me know if I have included
anything spurious or
I think you hit the nail on the head. I put the crtimes.diff first
because I was simply swapping it in for osx-create-time.diff in
Axel's email 3.0.0 test failure MacOS X 10.4.11.
Upon invoking make, this error in the ordering of the patches, on my
part yielded:
Check the output of your
. For those that missed it, here is the
I also missed the security announcement on the same day... Has the rsync
list setup changed? I guess I'll have to subscribe to -announce as
well...
I'd appreciate it if people would let me know about any testing they do,
even if it's just to say that things
of the announcement:
--
I have released rsync 2.6.3pre1 -- the first pre-release version of
2.6.3. Please help out with the testing so that the code gets a good
workout before 2.6.3 is released. Thanks!
To see what has changed
please ignore.
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
I compiled and installed rsync 2.6.2 from source (the site's download
page) today, under Cygwin 1.5.9-1 / Windows 2000 Professional SP4.
Initial testing shows that it operates properly and smoothly, and that
Wayne's bugfix for the daemon mode / --backup problem I reported earlier
did the trick
Hi,
Testing if working
--
Johan
May this be a good day for learning
Registered Linux User #330034 - still learning
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:28:32PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
Thankyou. That looks good.
If we're going to make this
jws == jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote the following on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:22 -0700
jws Long term, i think the bwlimit stuff needs a complete
jws reexamination. In addition to the sleeping times and spreading
jws the load as in the smoother bandwidth limiting but also its
jws
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
Thankyou. That looks good.
If we're going to make this more accurate it might be worthwhile to
actually look at how long we really did sleep for, and use that to
adjust time_to_sleep rather than
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
Thankyou. That looks good.
If we're going to make this more accurate it might be worthwhile to
actually look at how long we
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
Thankyou. That looks good.
If we're going to make this more accurate it might be worthwhile to
actually look at how long we
On 18 Jun 2003, jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
Thankyou. That looks good.
If we're going to make this more
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:28:32PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
Thankyou. That looks good.
If we're going to make this
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:52:10PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:26:48AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
I've been having a lot of fun improving my new-protocol testing app.
It's seems to be in pretty good shape (for test code), so I figured I'd
announce another release for those brave souls that may want to help me
in my thinking about a (potential) new rsync protocol. It's a tar.gz
file this time
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Wayne Davison wrote:
http://www.clari.net/~wayne/rzync.tar.gz
I forgot to mention that I changed the order of the local/remote args
to the 2-arg version of the cd command to be cd LOCAL REMOTE (the
command cd DIR still changes both the local and remote sides). This
I found some time in the past week to work on a simple test app that
would hopefully help to answer a few questions that came up recently:
1. Can a single-process generator+receiver work well? (Looks good so far,
but I haven't run any multi-processor timing tests yet.)
2. How easy is it to
On Thursday, April 25, 2002 07:34:47 PM -0500 Rich Winkel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+--
| Sorry for the junk mail, it seems my last post was lost in the ether,
| despite being successfully delivered to lists.samba.org (!)
| Very frustrating, since I didn't keep a copy of it.
|
| My question
123
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Sorry for the junk mail, it seems my last post was lost in the ether,
despite being successfully delivered to lists.samba.org (!)
Very frustrating, since I didn't keep a copy of it.
My question was regarding what might be called symmetric mirroring,
where two sets of identical files, both being
On 25 Apr 2002, Rich Winkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the junk mail, it seems my last post was lost in the ether,
despite being successfully delivered to lists.samba.org (!)
Very frustrating, since I didn't keep a copy of it.
My question was regarding what might be called symmetric
Hi Martin,
I guess I need to be more specific. I have a unix user who has unix
machines at home and at work. He wants local access to the same set of
files whether he's at home or at work.
If each side updates a non-overlapping set of files you can do this
using --update to push only the
27 matches
Mail list logo
