On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 11:04:32AM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
>
> I agree that exclude/include patters can be tricky, and you have a good
> point about familiarity versus complexity. I think what makes them hard
> to handle is the fact that we are dealing with filename (and directory
> na
Hi Chris,
Chris Shoemaker wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 03:42:25PM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
Chris Shoemaker wrote:
If I understand Wayne's design, it would be possible to invent a
(per-directory) "hook" rule, whose value is executed, and whose stdout
is parsed as a [in|ex]clude file list.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 08:50:10PM -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> of the "right path", but I won't be convinced until Wayne starts
> *deleting* man page text, because rsync's pattern matching can be
> fully explained in, say, one or two paragraphs.
that should've read "pattern matching _interface
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 03:42:25PM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
> Chris Shoemaker wrote:
>
> >If I understand Wayne's design, it would be possible to invent a
> >(per-directory) "hook" rule, whose value is executed, and whose stdout
> >is parsed as a [in|ex]clude file list. E.g.:
> >
> > -R "c
Chris Shoemaker wrote:
If I understand Wayne's design, it would be possible to invent a
(per-directory) "hook" rule, whose value is executed, and whose stdout
is parsed as a [in|ex]clude file list. E.g.:
-R "cat .rsync-my-includes"
or
-R "find . -ctime 1 -a ! -fstype nfs -a ! -empty -o iname 'fo
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:25:06AM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
>
> Oooh, I see we are getting a little ambitious, aren't we? ;-)
> [suggestion to use 'find' syntax]
If I understand Wayne's design, it would be possible to invent a
(per-directory) "hook" rule, whose value is executed, and whos
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:25:06AM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
> I like the idea, I'm just worried about coming up with yet a new syntax
> for these types of operations. I think we should stick with something
> "standard" or at least close to what people are used to already. So
> what come
Wayne Davison wrote:
I'm also looking forward to hearing news about the --filter option. I'm
thinking it is going to be very useful for backup purposes. What I
would want to be able to do is, on a per-directory basis and with
recursion as an option, enable or disabled backing up of files based
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 11:56:11AM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
> I have been using the rsync snapshot from 1/25 for the last few days and
> everything seems quite solid so far. I include below a few nit-picks in
> case you're looking for thing to tidy up.
Much appreciated!
> I'm also looki
Wayne,
I have been using the rsync snapshot from 1/25 for the last few days and
everything seems quite solid so far. I include below a few nit-picks in
case you're looking for thing to tidy up.
I'm also looking forward to hearing news about the --filter option. I'm
thinking it is going to be
10 matches
Mail list logo
