On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:42:54AM -0400, Christophe Kalt wrote: > i couldn't find anything in my various searches :-(
It was surprisingly hard to google for due to him using the phrase "report options" for the idea. Here are the messages to which I was referring: http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2003-May/006057.html http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2003-May/006058.html > i guess my question is "do we/you care to preserve the current > scheme for cases where extra information is not needed?" On > the one hand, i would prefer to do away with it for the sake > of simplicity, on the other hand, i'll probably need to keep > it for backward compatibility anyways. As you say, the old code needs to remain for backward compatibility. J.W. was thinking about using two bitmasks internally to control what gets output in the "report" information, and I think it wouldn't be that hard to leave the current bifurcated output scheme in rsync as long as these bitmasks got communicated to the other side. ..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
