Yes, that sounds like a pretty good plan for (say) rsync 3.0. We all
seem to be more or less on the same track as to how the protocol
should look.
Here are my feelings about the way to get there. I would be happy to
have holes picked in them:
* rsync 2.x works well, but is too crufty to be a
A recent email from Phil Howard prompted me to think about getting rsync
to use less memory for its file list. Here's an early idea on how to
modify the protocol to not generate the file list entirely in advance.
Please feel free to poke holes in this if I'm going astray.
I envision abbreviating
