Bug 3749 - rsync --help misleading information
Summary: rsync --help misleading information
Alias: None
Product: rsync
Classification: Unclassified
Component: core (show other bugs)
Version: 2.6.0
Hardware: All Linux
: P3 trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Wayne Davison
QA Contact: Rsync QA Contact
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-05-03 11:10 UTC by Jan
Modified: 2006-05-07 15:46 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jan 2006-05-03 11:10:41 UTC
about the --delete parameter, is shows 'not so logical' information

     --ignore-existing       ignore files that already exist on the receiving side
     --delete                delete files that don't exist on the sending side
     --delete-excluded       also delete excluded files on the receiving side

Depending on, weither your sending a backup to a server or fetching a backup from a server, this help does not make sense. Please change the help code into something more logical, in example: 

 --delete delete files that don't exist on the target side or directory

keywords like: "target" or "source" would be mutch easyer to understand instead of figuring it out by trial and error! Ive figured this for local copys, dont know if this help conflicts with daemon mode :P
Comment 1 Matt McCutchen 2006-05-03 17:16:00 UTC
I don't think the terms sender and receiver are problematic; they're equivalent to source and destination, respectively.  However, some of the help is unclear and/or ambiguous.  If --delete makes rsync "delete files that don't exist on the sending side", does rsync delete files from the sender or does it delete files that the sender does not have?  Let me propose this:

--delete: deletes receiver files that are unmatched on sender

And some improvements to --existing and --ignore-existing:

--existing: skip creating new files on receiver
--ignore-existing: skip updating files that already exist on receiver
Comment 2 Jan 2006-05-07 15:31:45 UTC
Just leave it like it is now... ive givin it some tought .. it does seem to do it like this... :)
Comment 3 Wayne Davison 2006-05-07 15:46:24 UTC
FYI, I didn't like the wording of the --delete option, so I had just recently improved it in the CVS version.  I also improved the wording of the existing/ignore-existing options.