Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support for a certain rsync workflow #29

Open
contrapunctus-1 opened this issue Jun 19, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Support for a certain rsync workflow #29

contrapunctus-1 opened this issue Jun 19, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@contrapunctus-1
Copy link

I have a certain rsync workflow I'm trying to (partially) automate -

  1. Local-to-local synchronization
  2. User specifies an alist of source/target directory pairs. These do not change too often, so I don't want to be asked about them (via command line, queries, or even through dired) every time I want to run rsync.
  3. Running the main command iterates over the alist, calling rsync for each pair of paths, with --dry-run and --delete-after (among others). The user inspects the rsync output, and can accept it (which runs the same rsync command but without --dry-run), or run other commands to interact with the output (e.g. searching for the file at point in the source or the target directories). The iteration can be paused and resumed across Emacs sessions.

I had seen dired-rsync, but it didn't sound like it was made for this kind of workflow, so I started writing my own package called rsync.el - there's some elementary code there.

Can dired-rsync do something like this, as it stands? If not, would it meet your vision for dired-rsync for me to extend it to support this workflow? It can also be a separate package extending it.

@stsquad stsquad added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 19, 2020
@stsquad
Copy link
Owner

stsquad commented Jun 19, 2020

I don't see any reason why we couldn't improve the local to local case although I'm not so sure about how a UI for previewing would work. I guess it would be kinda cool to be able to "bookmark" a command.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants