[PATCH] Batch-mode rewrite
c.shoemaker at cox.net
Mon Jul 12 23:56:27 GMT 2004
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:11:04PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:47:30PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:34:38PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> > > Another thing I noticed was that a local --write-batch copy behaved as
> > > if --whole-file had been specified.
> > Hmm, I forgot about that. Q: Shouldn't this be set in parse_arguments?
> > A: Oh yeah, that's right, we don't know that we're local until we parse
> > the src and dest args. :-( I guess it DOES matter which patch the
> > write-batch=0 is on.
> I've just checked-in a change that makes sure that the whole_file value
> is set properly in the local-copy-forces-whole-file special case before
> the generator is forked (which simplifies the code a bit from what it
> was). So, you should be able to put this write_batch=0 code back where
> you had it, if you like.
That's nice. I don't see any advantage of one path over the other. But
it is nice to keep the comment that says it doesn't matter.
BTW, batch mode seems to work fine with compression. Patch at 1am.
More information about the rsync