On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:51:35AM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 03:34:32PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > I'm thinking the protocol version MIN would be good to add, it might
> > not help for this cycle but would in future. This also ties in with
> > something i suggested earlier for the sake of testing, a --protocol
> > option to explicitly force a downgrade.
>
> I agree with both ideas, and have worked up a patch (though the new
> option is, as yet, undocumented):
>
> http://www.blorf.net/rsync-protocol.patch
>
> I'll go ahead and check this in soon, since I can't see any downside to
> doing this.
>
> Note that this change should help out with this cycle, since this change
> allows someone to just bump down the PROTOCOL_VERSION in rsync.h and the
> code will properly skip all the new-protocol extensions. It will also
> give us a work-around for talking to a pre-release server that someone
> might have left lying around, unsupported. E.g., if the remote system
> says it supports protocol 27, but it's a CVS version that doesn't really
> support all of 27, you can use the new "--protocol=26" option to force
> the two to talk using an earlier protocol version.
I see you committed it. Good. It deserves a mention in
NEWS. I'm less certain about the manpage.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
