Patching?

[Wayne Davison]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 03:34:32PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> I'm thinking the protocol version MIN would be good to add, it might
> not help for this cycle but would in future.  This also ties in with
> something i suggested earlier for the sake of testing, a --protocol
> option to explicitly force a downgrade.

I agree with both ideas, and have worked up a patch (though the new
option is, as yet, undocumented):

    http://www.blorf.net/rsync-protocol.patch

I'll go ahead and check this in soon, since I can't see any downside to
doing this.

Note that this change should help out with this cycle, since this change
allows someone to just bump down the PROTOCOL_VERSION in rsync.h and the
code will properly skip all the new-protocol extensions.  It will also
give us a work-around for talking to a pre-release server that someone
might have left lying around, unsupported.  E.g., if the remote system
says it supports protocol 27, but it's a CVS version that doesn't really
support all of 27, you can use the new "--protocol=26" option to force
the two to talk using an earlier protocol version.

..wayne..