delete-delay vs. delete-after in 3.0.2 (and possible bug)

Michal Soltys soltys at
Sun Jun 15 07:36:30 GMT 2008

Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:58:34PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
> have per-dir filter files being updated, its works the same as
> --delete-after (if we disregard certain backup-file cases where the
> suffix is not excluded), just more optimally.

You mean - the difference will be in the moment where the non-excluded 
files get deleted ? As long as per-driectory filters are the same on 
sender and receiver, the final outcome will still be the same regardless 
of a delete algorithm used ?

Anyway - would it be allright to submit a small manpage diff, to add 
some details about difference between delete-delay and delete-after ?

More information about the rsync mailing list