TODO hardlink performance optimizations

jw schultz jw at
Wed Jan 7 04:00:35 GMT 2004

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:36:03PM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
> One complicating factor of getting rid of dev+inode in the flist_struct
> is that some of the old-protocol code uses these values to fix a bug in
> directory deletion order in protocols prior to 19.  I'd suggest that we
> just dump support for protocols 17 and 18 in the next release.  Protocol
> 19 is almost 6 years old, and our current code even warns the user when
> using a protocol any older than 20, so I doubt that this would cause a
> problem.

That was the primary reason i added the warning for older
protocol versions.  Remind people they are running obsolete
and probably insecure versions before they become

With bumping MIN_PROTOCOL_VERSION to 20 id's suggest
OLD_PROTOCOL_VERSION be bumped to either 24 which is now
four years old.  Or even 25 which while only three years old
is the protocol of 2.5.0.  Compatibility across one minor
version (2.x) increment is generous but at the rate we
increment version numbers two is prolifigate.

        30 Jan 2000     2.4.1   29 Jan 2000     24
	30 Nov 2001     2.5.0   23 Aug 2001     25

	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw at

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

More information about the rsync mailing list