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

Number   :  4697
Date     :  2003-06-01
Author   :  Bob Weir
Subject  :  Re: Exclusion Question
Size(KB) :  3


I wholeheartedly agree with James, please leave /CLONE alone,
it does what clone means and there is always /CLONE/Z0.
If there is a need for special exclusions why not do it with
extra features in some new BU variants?

Bob

James Sadler wrote: -

> Frankly that clone switch is one of the best
> features in XXCOPY when it is deliberately used as a
> deletion tool. I have some deletion tools and none of
> them work as well as cloning an empty directory onto a
> folder. It would be a sin to take that capability out
> of XXCOPY.
> --- Kan Yabumoto  wrote:
> > 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.