delete-delay vs. delete-after in 3.0.2 (and possible bug)
soltys at ziu.info
Wed Jun 18 20:44:34 GMT 2008
Wayne Davison wrote:
> Diffs are always welcomed. Please feel free.
Allright, tiny update to the rsync.yo file.
I haven't included information about backup/suffix case you mentioned,
as I'm not sure about the details yet.
-------------- next part --------------
--- rsync.yo.org 2008-05-17 18:45:28.000000000 +0200
+++ rsync.yo 2008-06-18 22:38:48.000000000 +0200
@@ -1170,6 +1170,13 @@
using bf(--delete-after) (which it cannot do if bf(--recursive) is doing an
+bf(--delete-delay) is particulary useful with bf(--delay-updates) option, as
+it avoids an extra dir-scan delete pass in such case.
+Note, that bf(--delete-delay) is not equivalent to bf(--delete-after), when
+per-directory rules on the receiving and sending side are different - in such
+case, deletions are computed using old rules.
dit(bf(--delete-after)) Request that the file-deletions on the receiving
side be done after the transfer has completed. This is useful if you
are sending new per-directory merge files as a part of the transfer and
More information about the rsync