Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:27:43 -0600
From: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:14:00PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> >>>>> " " == Lenny Foner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:22:38 -0600 From: Dave Dykstra
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I like that idea. I would call it "--only-from".
>
> > One corner case to consider is: What happens when one of the
> > pathnames in the list turns out to be a directory? My advice
> > it to keep it absolutely as simple as possible and warn about
> > it, but take no other action for that particular pathname. In
> > other words, leave it up to the source of the pathname list to
> > properly get rid of directories, rather than suddenly opening
> > up the same can of worms that rsync already has by getting
> > fancy about what to do with directories, inclusion, exclusion,
> > etc etc.
>
> without -r, dont recurse, with -r, recurse.
>
> Anything else would be unintuitive. But if thats a client or server
> feature....
I'm planning to ignore -r with --files-from (yes I've been pursuaded that
that's a better name than --only-from) because people are so much in the
habit of using -a which implies -r.
I agree with this. Also, supporting -r suddenly gets you into the
swamp of "gee, well, maybe we should support --exclude just in case,
and then..." and you are quickly sliding down a scree slope... So
my advice would be to ignore anything that relates to "which files
do we transfer", and -not- to ignore anything else, such as "how
verbose should we be?" and so forth. That seems an easy rule to
document and to understand.
I also agree with whomever suggested that we -do- at least sync the
permissions of a directory, if it's passed via --files-from, even
if we're not going to sync its contents. Again, do what we were
told, whether it's a file, directory, or special file.
Thanks!
