[Apt-rpm] I: [PATCH] 0.5.4cnc9: rsync method support

[Paul Green]

jw schultz <jw at pegasys.ws> wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Paul Green wrote:
>> Sviatoslav Sviridov [mailto:svd at ns1.lintec.minsk.by] wrote:
>> >It would be good if attached patch will be included in upstream. This
>> >patch adds option --apt-support for rsync and with this option rsync
>> >will print some additional information about file being transfered. No
>> >program logic changed. Having this option in rsync we can have apt with
>> >rsync method support.
>> 
>> 1. What is apt?  
>> 2. The code changes look pretty simple and quite clean, but I didn't see any 
>> documentation changes. 
>> 
>> Are there any objections to my applying this patch if Sviatoslav supplies 
>> documentation changes, too?
>
>I object to the patch.
>
>As i told him in response to an offline request to me and Martin.
>| I will not recommend this patch.  The focus seems
>| far too narrow and there is no coherent argument for
>| inclusion.  This just smacks of option proliferation.

I'd like to hold these discussions on-list. I would hate to apply a patch that 
had been privately rejected because I wasn't aware of the wider context.

>He provides no justification for the patch.  It adds yet
>another verbosity option for the purposes of reporting
>progress.  Oh, and why "apt" that smacks of name pollution.
>
>If we are going to add this sort of progress reporting let's
>do so with a unified verbosity/progress report framework.
>There are plenty of verbosity methods i and others would
>like.  Much better would be to have a --log-opts that
>accepts a list of independent keywords and can be used
>instead of -v with stacking.

I concur completely.

Thanks
PG
--
Paul Green, Senior Technical Consultant, Stratus Technologies.
Voice: +1 978-461-7557; FAX: +1 978-461-3610
Speaking from Stratus not for Stratus