On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Jeff Pitman wrote: > On Thursday 06 January 2005 07:04, Carson Gaspar wrote: > > I have no objection to the option, just to the name - don't call > > things atomic if they aren't. Call it delayed-rename, or whatever. > > How about --rename-after?
I'd rather see it called something like --near-atomic or something else abstract (that is explained in the manual), instead of some action that may be mis-interpreted. But I'm more interested to know if something like this is acceptable to get included or not. Not this patch specifically, but the same functionality. -- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
