Vondo Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Here's my situation: I have three computers (A, B, &C). Let's say I have a folder Share on each computer with subfolders X, Y, Z.On computer A & B I want to synchronize all of XYZ.On computer C, I don't have room for Z (or need for it). So I want to exclude it from being synced. I just don't want it to appear at all.How can I do this?Naively, I would put "Z" into .SyncIgnore on computer C and expect this to happen. Computer C should now no longer care if Z is present or not and shouldn't try to download it if A or B says they have it.What I see instead is that "Z" is downloaded by "C". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebush Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 For some reason, the .SyncIgnore seems to be the basis for which files a peer will ignore when 'sending' files, but .SyncIgnore doesn't seem to affect what the peer receives.Not sure if this is a bug or intentional. I don't like it either. I think it would be more natural if it ignored for all BTSync functionality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vondo Posted July 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 For some reason, the .SyncIgnore seems to be the basis for which files a peer will ignore when 'sending' files, but .SyncIgnore doesn't seem to affect what the peer receives.Not sure if this is a bug or intentional. I don't like it either. I think it would be more natural if it ignored for all BTSync functionality.Yes. It seems my only way out of this connundrum is to set up a bunch of secrets and cherry-pick amongst them. The problem is that I don't have XYZ but more like 15-20 different "chunks".Previously I've been using "unison" for this kind of thing and it's very happy doing things piecemeal. But it's on demand and requires an SSH server, so those are downsides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebush Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Yes. It seems my only way out of this connundrum is to set up a bunch of secrets and cherry-pick amongst them. The problem is that I don't have XYZ but more like 15-20 different "chunks".Previously I've been using "unison" for this kind of thing and it's very happy doing things piecemeal. But it's on demand and requires an SSH server, so those are downsides.Yeah, you'll have to split it up, or at least group them together as best you can. It would be nice if a dev can tell us if it's a bug or intentional though, and whether they're considering changing it as I described. The way it works now doesn't seem to be logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.