[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> :-( Apologies for the top-posting. Please don't quote this message )-:
Huh?
> Yes, this patch produced correct behaviour (as far as I can tell :-)
> Downloading a file (with -c) for the first time, regardless of whether the
> server supported resume, succeeded.
>
> Downloading a file (with -c) for the second time:
> * If the server supports resume, then "File is fully downloaded, nothing to
> do"
> * If the server doesn't support resume, then "Refusing to truncate file"
>
> Downloading a file (with -c) again, after manually truncating it:
> * If the server supports resume, then it skips past the downloaded part
> correctly, and gets the rest.
> * If the server doesn't support resume, then "Refusing to truncate file"
>
> It is up to somebody else to dream up more scenarios.
I think these are all the scenarios. Thanks for testing them.
But wait, there's another one: an existing zero-length file should
behave exactly as in your first scenario.
