On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 08:58:43PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:20:59PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 05:25:18PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote: > > > So, perhaps we should go ahead and save off the exclude list in the > > > batch file and force read_batch mode to read them? > > > > I'm leaning in this direction. > > I was too until I realized that, in the haste of my last message, I > had made a mistake about the excludes being needed to limit the dirs, > symlinks, and devices. Of course these items were already elided from > the list the sender sent us, so the only effect the excludes have at > --read-batch time is to limit what gets deleted by --delete. > > So, with that in mind, I think it would be more flexible to tell the > user that they can just drop the include/exclude options unless they > want to use --delete and limit what get deleted. We can have the > writing of the BATCH.sh file (which I renamed from BATCH.rsync_argvs) > automatically dump the exclude options if --delete wasn't specified > (or if --delete-excluded was).
Ok, I hadn't been paying close attention to the various delete and exclude features, but I think we're on the same page now. If I understand correctly, there's no reason to save the list into the BATCH file. It only needs be in BATCH.sh. (I'm glad the 'rsync_argvs' is gone.) I'm not sure if it's worth it to exclude the arguments (from BATCH.sh) when they're not needed. It might be easier to always dump them. Is there much performance impact specifying --excludes when they won't be used? -chris > > ..wayne.. -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
