On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:59:50PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> I'm not familiar with that area of the code, but I assume it would be
> straightforward.
Good to hear that :)
> Another idea just occurred to me: it would be nice to be able to stream all
> the batch files over the network rather t
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:23:33AM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> Thanks Dave for your comments, I have incorporated your feedback in the patch
> below. Please review.
>
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:49:07AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > Hmm, I wonder if it would be easy to use rsync's compression l
Thanks Dave for your comments, I have incorporated your feedback in the patch
below. Please review.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:49:07AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> Hmm, I wonder if it would be easy to use rsync's compression library to
> compress the whole flist, csum, and delta files on the fly
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 02:42:47PM -0801, Jos Backus wrote:
...
> +Batch mode can be used to apply the same set of updates to many identical
> +systems\&. Suppose one has a directory tree which is replicated on a number of
> +hosts\&. Now suppose some changes have to be made to this source direct
Thanks to Alberto Accomazzi and Dave Dykstra for their comments. Please have a
look at the updated version below.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:28:46AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> Refer people to the BATCH MODE section for more details.
Done.
> The opening description should be easily understanda
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 05:53:04PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:19:56PM -0801, Jos Backus wrote:
> > OK, I may need help with the markup part though, so I'll post a rough draft
> > here first.
>
> Here's my first attempt at improving the documentation of the batch mode
>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:19:56PM -0801, Jos Backus wrote:
> OK, I may need help with the markup part though, so I'll post a rough draft
> here first.
Here's my first attempt at improving the documentation of the batch mode
feature. This is the manpage only; I'll attempt to update the yodl file
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> It should do more, it should block -z from being used with --write-batch.
Or read-batch, for that matter. The second if () handles this situation:
Index: options.c
===
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:52:17AM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:07:04AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > It isn't clear to me that the -z option makes sense for batch mode anyway.
> > Perhaps turning the rsync_* files into a gzipped tarball before sending
> > them to the rem
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:07:04AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> It isn't clear to me that the -z option makes sense for batch mode anyway.
> Perhaps turning the rsync_* files into a gzipped tarball before sending
> them to the remote machines would have better compression. I guess some
> measurem
I'm sorry, but I don't have any familiarity with that part of rsync code
and don't have any ideas for you.
It isn't clear to me that the -z option makes sense for batch mode anyway.
Perhaps turning the rsync_* files into a gzipped tarball before sending
them to the remote machines would have bett
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 12:02:31AM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> However, when I add ``-z'', rsync does fail when using a different target
> directory.
Sadly, it turns out that my test was flawed. Batch mode doesn't quite work
with -z, even when the destination directory is not changed. Not really
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:05:15AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> One time I accidentally tried use --read-batch to directory that didn't
> match the destination directory that was present when --write-batch created
> the files, and then it core dumped at batch.c line 487:
I don't see a coredump in
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:22:58PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > Yes, I'll look at doing some documentation. What about a paragraph titled
> > ``About batch mode'' with a little explanation how it works, how it differs
> > from normal rsync operation and a small example?
>
> Sounds like a good i
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:41:36PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:05:15AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 04:37:53PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > > On 17 Jan 2002, Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > When you get a chance, could you please loo
Fwiw, I'm currently working on getting rid of the automatically generated
filenames --write-batch creates, instead --write-batch should accept a suffix,
just like --read-batch. With that working I'll convert the suffix into a
prefix, per Dave's excellent suggestion.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:05:
I have found the problem: a missed change from dev_t to DEV64_T. See the last
hunk for batch.c in the patch below against today's CVS. It also appends a
newline to the argvs file and skips adding the source directory to the command
line.
Index: batch.c
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 06:32:56PM -0801, Jos Backus wrote:
> I'll try to investigate; it must be some interaction between the batch code
> and some change that has been made in the last month.
I have narrowed the changes that break batch mode (even with my patch applied)
down to
cvs diff -D
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 02:52:08PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> I applied the patch to the current development CVS and it gets further but
> still has trouble. Using the above commands, the first --write-batch now
> actually copies the files in addition to creating the rsync_* files.
> However, w
On 15 Jan 2002, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Tridge would be in a much better position to judge it's
> value vs. the code impact.
Actually at the same time I was reconsidering this Tridge also
expressed concern off-line at the impact on the code.
I've been looking at impr
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 11:10:55AM -0801, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 12:29:05PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
...
> > Here's what I
> > tried:
> > mkdir s d1
> > echo "rev 1" >f1
> > echo "rev 1" >f2
> > rm -f rsync_*.*
> > rsync -av --write-batch s/ d1/
> > r
Hi Dave,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 12:29:05PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> I'm sorry but I really haven't looked at it closely so I can't judge the
> impact on the rsync code, and I haven't tried it yet. I think Tridge would
> be in a much better position to judge it's value vs. the code impac
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:24PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> I'm having second thoughts about merging the rsync+ / batch mode patch
> into the main rsync release. It adds a lot of extra paths to the
> code. I can see it will be useful for a few people, but I'm not sure
> it's sufficiently gene
I'm having second thoughts about merging the rsync+ / batch mode patch
into the main rsync release. It adds a lot of extra paths to the
code. I can see it will be useful for a few people, but I'm not sure
it's sufficiently general to justify being there. Dave?
--
Martin
24 matches
Mail list logo
