On Thu 29 May 2003, jw schultz wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 10:32:12AM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> > Thanks for the reminder, jw -- I had meant to respond to this and forgot.
>
> It had surprised me that there was no response. This is just
> way to invasive for a unilateral decision. And f
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 10:32:12AM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> Thanks for the reminder, jw -- I had meant to respond to this and forgot.
It had surprised me that there was no response. This is just
way to invasive for a unilateral decision. And frankly it
will be too much work to code up these
Thanks for the reminder, jw -- I had meant to respond to this and forgot.
I like the idea quite a bit since it allows the user to see what's going
on to the exact degree that they need while remaining compatible with
the old rsync behavior. I just have a couple comments:
Rsync currently has 5 le
Only two non-developers have responded to this. Barring a
favourable response from other developers i'll shelve this
proposal.
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:11:09PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> I have hinted in the past of wanting to go to a more
> selective control of the output of rsync. Here it is
