jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Paul Green wrote: >> Sviatoslav Sviridov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: >> >It would be good if attached patch will be included in upstream. This >> >patch adds option --apt-support for rsync and with this option rsync >> >will print some additional information about file being transfered. No >> >program logic changed. Having this option in rsync we can have apt with >> >rsync method support. >> >> 1. What is apt? >> 2. The code changes look pretty simple and quite clean, but I didn't see any >> documentation changes. >> >> Are there any objections to my applying this patch if Sviatoslav supplies >> documentation changes, too? > >I object to the patch. > >As i told him in response to an offline request to me and Martin. >| I will not recommend this patch. The focus seems >| far too narrow and there is no coherent argument for >| inclusion. This just smacks of option proliferation.
I'd like to hold these discussions on-list. I would hate to apply a patch that had been privately rejected because I wasn't aware of the wider context. >He provides no justification for the patch. It adds yet >another verbosity option for the purposes of reporting >progress. Oh, and why "apt" that smacks of name pollution. > >If we are going to add this sort of progress reporting let's >do so with a unified verbosity/progress report framework. >There are plenty of verbosity methods i and others would >like. Much better would be to have a --log-opts that >accepts a list of independent keywords and can be used >instead of -v with stacking. I concur completely. Thanks PG -- Paul Green, Senior Technical Consultant, Stratus Technologies. Voice: +1 978-461-7557; FAX: +1 978-461-3610 Speaking from Stratus not for Stratus -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
