Incompatible Unison update

[Andrew Farris]

Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 02/21/2008 04:15 PM, Andrew Farris wrote:
>> I've used unison for awhile, and quite frankly this happens all the 
>> time.  To handle consistent sync you need to match the versions being 
>> used on both sides exactly and keep them there.  I've had it break 
>> numerous times changing versions within 'compatible' version ranges.  
>> Changing those versions means you have to take what currently exists 
>> and assume it is in sync the first time you run the new version.  This 
>> is just how things have been going with unison.
> 
> For the record, that sounds dumb and a reason to strongly consider rsync 
> or something else instead of unison.

Yes, its very broken.  But just using rsync is a complicated situation as well 
since the purpose of unison is not just to copy from an authoritative source to 
a backup (what rsync does wonderfully) but instead to replicate changes made on 
either side to the other side.  Unison will propagate a deletion on either side 
to the other one, something rsync would need to be run multiple times (with 
swapped source/destinations) to accomplish.. I tried setting that up once but I 
just made a mess (it appeared to need 4 runs, one each without delete, then one 
each direction with delete, but maybe I'm just not thinking it through enough).

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
  gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----