Remove node happens twice

[maelcum]

Hi,

when using "-delete" as an option to remove files at s3 that have been deleted at the local source,
I usually get a "remove node this/and/that/file.ext" *and*, after the sync has been gone over the last of the files, again a "remove node this/and/that".
As far as it looks (could be coincidence, though) in the first step, only files are deleted, and only after processing *all* files, s3sync.rb returns and deletes the (now empty) folders.

Did I get this right?
Why would you do that - likely more complicated - way, instead of deleting the folders right after the last file?

Thanks.

[maelcum]

Not even getting feedback for about three month sucks big time.
I'm a devoted follower of s3sync, but not it's rather unarticulate programmer.

[ferrix]

Wow man, I didn't see this thread for some reason until your update bumped it in RSS.

It is in fact a logical and reasonable thing.  To delete directories in the same order as the nodes are processed (depth first) wouldn't work.  It would be trying to delete dirs that still contain unprocessed items, which doesn't work (at the programmatic level there's no rm -R).

Instead of adding complicated logic to do recursive removes, it just pushes the list of dirs that need deleting onto a stack, and reads them out in reverse order at the end for actual deletion.  This ensures that /foo/bar/etc is deleted before /foo/bar.

Hope this answers your question.

I'm a devoted follower of s3sync, but not it's rather unarticulate programmer.

By the way I'm happy to help, but calling me names isn't a good way to make your case.  Also, I happen to be extremely articulate.  Perhaps you meant "unresponsive" or something?

Cheers.

[maelcum]

Wow man, I didn't see this thread for some reason until your update bumped it in RSS.

Excuse accepted. If it was even mean as such.

Hope this answers your question.

Yes, thanks.

I'm a devoted follower of s3sync, but not it's rather unarticulate programmer.

By the way I'm happy to help, but calling me names isn't a good way to make your case.  Also, I happen to be    extremely articulate.  Perhaps you meant "unresponsive" or something?

Perhaps. English is not my mother tongue. "unarticulate" is a translation, and in my language not offensive. It just describes a behaviour of somebody that is hard to communicate with.
And that is the impression I got from you by reading your answers in the forum (or the old Amazon thread), which I have read most of, if not all of them. Another word I would use to describe you is "terse". Again, I don't know if that is offensive or not. The Dictionary doesn't say so.

[Glyn]

Hi Maelcum,

From an outsiders (and native Englishman's) point of view, I read "unarticulate" as being rather offensive.  I appreciate that your mother tongues isn't English and given that my girlfriend is French can appreciate that this type of thing occasionally happen - I'm sure it wasn't meant.

Regardless to what any dictionary says, saying that someone's "unarticulate", pretty much implies that they are dumb or stupid rather than being uncommunactive (not something that would be appropriate for some who's invented such a cool program!).  I would read terse as being someone who gives very short to the point answers, almost rude, normally indicating that they want to get away from you (e.g. a girl may act tersely when she doesn't want to be chatted up), again I wouldn't say that this is appropriate - to me it sounds like an honest mistake from someone who's good enough to donate his code (not making money) and to provide support via this forum.

Glyn.

PS - I hope that you take this from some who's trying to reciprocate all the help that you've given me setting up s3sync by assisting with your English rather than someone who's trying to "tell you off".

PPS - Ferrix, if you - or someone else - could give a definative answer to resolve my question regarding --exclude (see earlier topic), I'd be grateful!!!

[maelcum]

Well Glyn, "thanks" for the lecture.
You are certainly everything but unarticulate, aren't you? 

The Free Online Dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unarticulate says: unarticulate - without or deprived of the use of speech or words

Doesn't sound bad to me at all. But you can always interpret something bad in it, if you are looking for it or feel guilty. I did not want to harm anybody, but I still think Ferrix is rather terse. Thats the impression I got. Why don't leave it at that. Ferrix is free to delete/censor any post he doesn't like.

And I will unsibscribe from this thread now. Not objective, functional, factual, matter-of-fact. Choose your flavour.

[ferrix]

Yep, terse is a good descriptor for me.  Perhaps "too busy to spend lots of time with it", but also just terse.