To inc_recurse or not to inc_recurse? [Re: 3.0.0pre2: bookend breakage (2 different errors)]

Wayne Davison wayned at
Tue Oct 16 04:17:51 GMT 2007

On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:15:34PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> However, a more discreet and much more robust solution would be for
> the client and server to negotiate whether to incrementally recurse
> just after negotiating the protocol version.

Yeah, I agree that it is better for the client to explicitly tell the
server what is going on (and allows a batch file to indicate what is
happening too).  That way there is no confusion.  It also allows for
future expansion in certain situations -- e.g. I can imagine making a
future version of --prune-empty-dirs and/or --delay-updates compatible
with inc-recursion, and this will allow a more modern rsync to try to
tell a remote receiver to use that option and stay in inc_recurse mode,
and the receiver can say "no, I don't support that". 

The CVS version (and latest nightly) have this fixed.


More information about the rsync mailing list