Re: cross-platform backup tool First beta v2.1.2b1 release towards v2.2.0

[EricZolf]

But it hasn't any practical implication?

On September 18, 2022 4:54:41 PM UTC, Robert Nichols 
<rnicholsNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9/18/22 6:51 AM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>> 
>> On 18/09/2022 01:59, Robert Nichols wrote:
>>> The only issue I'm seeing with a v2.0.5 client and a v2.1.2b1 server is 
>>> that you (obviously, in hindsight) have to be using a command line syntax 
>>> that both versions understand, which is the old syntax. That means the 
>>> client sees a lot of unavoidable "deprecated" warnings, and also that 
>>> future removal of that old syntax from v2.1 will break compatibility with 
>>> v2.0.
>> 
>> You shouldn't need to use the old syntax, as long as you use the API 200. 
>> With API 201, the server is called with the new syntax (rdiff-backup server 
>> ...), else (the default) it's called with the old syntax (rdiff-backup 
>> --server ...). If you observed something different, please create an issue. 
>> In any case, you can still put whatever you want in the remote schema.
>
>I am trying to run rdiff-backup from the client using the default ssh schema, 
>e.g.:
>      rdiff-backup --null-separator ${RBaction} {other options} testdir 
> test-vm:test-archive
>where RBaction is "-b" for the old syntax or "backup" for the new.
>
>The client is running v2.0.5, the server is running v2.1.2b1. The default API 
>on the server is 200 (according to "rdiff-backup info").
>
>There is no way to stop the server from complaining about the old command 
>syntax, and the client of course does not accept the new syntax.
>