On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:42:15PM -0400, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> Yes - rsync should _not_ use known-bad copies of files unless --partial has
> been specified.
I'd have to agree with Carson 100%. Of the files that appear on the
destination, I'd expect them all to be 100% accurate or fail to get
c
--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 13:39:24 -0700 Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What do you think? Rsync has always moved a finished file into place,
even if it fails the full-file checksum. I'm wondering if this is
really a good idea. Perhaps that should only occur if the --partial
flag
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:39:24PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> It's pretty easy to at least fix this file-is-up-to-date deception.
While this fix may be useful to some people, I'd much rather wait to
see a real fix such that read errors on the sending side doesn't result
in a corrupt file on the
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:45:15PM -0700, Todd Stansell wrote:
> Subsequent rsyncs will succeed without any errors as long as the -c
> option isn't used. You'd never know the file was corrupted, since the
> size and timestamp are both correct on the destination file.
It's pretty easy to at least
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:45:15PM -0700, Todd Stansell wrote:
> 2.6.2 now produces an error message, but still also produces the
> corrupted destination file.
Yes, starting with 2.6.0 we at least get an error message that something
went wrong. However, it would be much better if the receiver did
