https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2240
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-13 14:26 ------- I'm not totally sure what you mean by "arbitrary nesting of matches", but I'll assume that you're talking about being able to override the rules of a .cvsignore file (which is not currently possible) and to string together multiple generic --include-from/--exclude-from files on the command-line and have some of the files specify a rule that will override the rules of a later file (or earlier, depending on the order of the scan). This is something that was talked about before, and I think that it would be a nice idea to add something like this to rsync. Your syntax choice looks like a good one. (I had previously suggested using "++ pattern" instead of "+! pattern", but I like "+!" better). This does mean that an incompatibility in the syntax of exclude files is introduced (e.g. a file named "+! foo" was not previously special). I'm thinking that it would be a good idea to make the code escape all names that start with "+" or "-" (e.g. prefix "+ " or "- ", as appropriate). This would allow the adding of any non-space suffixes to the initial "+" or "-" to change their meaning without adding any new incompatibilities in the syntax of the include/exclude files. I think I'll go ahead and add this to the code that sends the name over the socket, as it does not interfere with backward compatibility (and improves forward compatibility). As for the order of the includes/excludes, the same logic can be implemented in either order, so we need some other reason besides adding a new short-circuit syntax to change it. For instance, your patch can be thought of as implementing first-match on the short-circuit rules, and falling back to last match on the rest of the rules (and .cvsignore files must get added at the bottom of the list of rules). In the current rsync order this would be implemented as a priority last-match of the short-circuit rules, followed by first-match of the normal rules (and .cvsignore files continue to be added at the top of the list of rules). So, a --last-match option should only be added if we wish to give the user the option of writing their rules in the opposite order, and I'm not sure we need that. As for the implementation, I'd prefer to see one that doesn't always match every name against every item in the list (if we can help it). We can do this by adding a "previous" pointer to the exclude_struct so that it can be scanned in either order. The code would then scan in one direction for just the short-circuit rules (if any exist), and then fall back to scanning in the opposite direction for normal rules. If the --last-match option was still desired, I would make its only affect be to change the order of how the user's items get put into the list (so that the same scanning code could be used for both modes). I'm currently considering some changes to the include/exclude code: namely a modified version of the current merge-exclude-file.diff in the patches dir, but with the syntax of the include-rule lines changed. Thus, the addition of a new "overriding" include/exclude idiom would go well with this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html