Wayne Davison wrote:
Diffs are always welcomed. Please feel free.
..wayne..
Allright, tiny update to the rsync.yo file.
I haven't included information about backup/suffix case you mentioned,
as I'm not sure about the details yet.
--- rsync.yo.org2008-05-17 18:45:28.0 +02
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 09:36:30AM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
> would it be allright to submit a small manpage diff, to add some
> details about difference between delete-delay and delete-after ?
Diffs are always welcomed. Please feel free.
..wayne..
--
Please use reply-all for most replies t
Wayne Davison wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:58:34PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
have per-dir filter files being updated, its works the same as
--delete-after (if we disregard certain backup-file cases where the
suffix is not excluded), just more optimally.
You mean - the difference will b
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:58:34PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
> Still, in that case - what's the benefit of using --delete-delay option ?
It is useful for things such as --delay-updates --delete-delay (to have
all updates happen more rapidly at the end), and the option avoids an
extra dir-scan de
Wayne Davison wrote:
per-dir rules set right for both the on-going copying, and a late delete
scan). I don't think this is likely to change any time soon, but it
would be nice to have a way of doing something like early per-dir filter
copying or something.
..wayne..
Oki, thanks for clarifica
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 04:41:42PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
> rsync -aHx --delete-delay --filter="dir-merge, .rf" /src/ /dst/
> ...testfile will be removed, unless .rf (with above rules) already exists
> on the receiving side.
Yeah, that is how it currently works. The --delete-delay option de
Hello
I've noticed today, that --delete-delay introduced in 3.0.2 is not
functionally equivalent of --delete-after (I was under impression it
should work this way).
Looking at following example:
/src
/src/testfile
/src/.rf
/dst
/dst/testfile
.rf consists of following lines:
S, .rf
H, *
P,
