[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]    [<<]Thread[>>]

Number   :  4694
Date     :  2003-06-01
Author   :  Kan Yabumoto
Subject  :  Re: Exclusion Question
Size(KB) :  2


edlight wrote:

>I've been using an older version of xxcopy, and just
>downloaded the new one but haven't installed it.
>
>My question:
>
>I've discovered that when using /clone and /ex,
>if I put a file such as "pagefile.sys" on one
>line in the text file of exclusions, if that file
>is not in the source it will be deleted in the target.
>
>So I've had to put a dummy file in the source.

The XXCOPY behavior you are observing is what we should all
expect. It is not a bug.

/CLONE is to make a duplicate directory as closely as possible.
If there is anything extra in the destination, it should be
removed. That is what the /ZY component the /CLONE switch
(a combination of many switches) is designed to do.

The /ZY switch does not get affected by the exclusion list.
The exclusion list (like almost all other file-selection
switches) works on the objects in the source directory.

We have heard a number of users' wish that there should be
an exclusion mechanism that applies to the /Z (and possibly
on /RD and /RX) action.

Anyway, our "official" justification for the exclusion
list to be applied only to the objects in the source
directory is consistent to all other file-selection
mechanisms that are also to modify objects in the source.

On the other hand, in the case of the exclusion items,
I personally see more advantages (than disadvantages if
any) to change the behavior of the exclusion items to
apply on both the source and the destination. To be
honest, I can even accept the "exceptional" behavior
with the exclusion items. But, we still do not have
the courage to change that for two reasons:

1. possible confusion that may arise by applying the
exclusion items on both sides while all other
switches (most notably the inclusion items which
should not apply to the /Z action).

2. the change would break some existing batch files
in strange ways.

So, probably the best remedy for this situation
would be to create a separate set of exclusion mechanism
specifically for the /Z (and possibly for /RD and /RX)
actions. But, this is a can of worm (what about all
other switches that would affect the items in the
destination in similar fashion?)

Lastly, let me point out that the /CLONE operation
is to duplicate the contents of the source directory
in the destination as closely as possible. Wishing
exceptions in this regard is already a contradiction
to the purpose of /CLONE.

In conclusion, creating a dummy file to nullify the
effect of the /Z action is a valid and useful technique.

I would like to listen to other arguments on this issue
because I'm still somewhat ambivalent.

Kan Yabumoto



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.