I submitted a patch similar to what Max suggested. Nobody came up with
a definitive answer on whether the modify-window default should be 1 or
2 so I left it at 2.
- Dave
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 06:27:31PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > Ok, I agree --modify-window should def
Dave Dykstra wrote:
> Ok, I agree --modify-window should default to 2 (or 1 if that's all
> that's really needed) on cygwin. However, I don't like os-specific
> defines.
They have the advantage that the entire logic is visible in the .c file,
rather than split between the .c and configure.in.
>
Ok, I agree --modify-window should default to 2 (or 1 if that's all that's
really needed) on cygwin. However, I don't like os-specific defines.
That _WIN32 we've got there is the only one currently in the code, and
there's no occurrances of __CYGWIN__. I'd rather have a configure.in
rule for it.
jw schultz wrote:
This message says it is 2 seconds aso on NTFSD actually:
http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/rsync/2000-July/002491.html
I don't use windows myself. I just recall that one of the
windows filesystem has timestamps in the milliseconds.
I also thought that, but that mesage say
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:21:36PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> jw schultz wrote:
>
> >The 2 second timestamp resolution only applies to some
> >windows filesystems. I think NTFS has timestamp resolution
> >in the milliseconds (unlrelated to precision). It should
> >only become an issue when the
jw schultz wrote:
The 2 second timestamp resolution only applies to some
windows filesystems. I think NTFS has timestamp resolution
in the milliseconds (unlrelated to precision). It should
only become an issue when the windows filesystem is the
destination.
This message says it is 2 seconds a
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 10:36:33AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 01:02:29PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> > Uhm... rsync developers: what do you think about changing the default
> > modify-window in the Cygwin platform?
> > It seems to me that many problems people have are ju
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:32:30AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> The only way to do it would be to modify the protocol to include the info
> instead of passing a parameter.
I realize this may sound like heresy, but would it not be worthwhile in terms
of code simplification/robustness to break compa
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:52:43PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Dave Dykstra wrote:
>
> >it would fail if it were
> >talking to a release of rsync that is too old to recognize the
> >option[...]. The surprise factor on that may be too much to make it
> >worthwhile.
> >
> >
> I agree. I didn't
Dave Dykstra wrote:
it would fail if it were
talking to a release of rsync that is too old to recognize the option[...]. The surprise factor on that may be too much to make it worthwhile.
I agree. I didn't think about that.
But, given the resilience to "upgrade" many people have, you sure are
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 01:02:29PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Uhm... rsync developers: what do you think about changing the default
> modify-window in the Cygwin platform?
> It seems to me that many problems people have are just because of the
> granularity of timestamp.
> Maybe changing the de
Uhm... rsync developers: what do you think about changing the default
modify-window in the Cygwin platform?
It seems to me that many problems people have are just because of the
granularity of timestamp.
Maybe changing the default could be the best choice. That would be
documented in the "man" a
12 matches
Mail list logo
