rsync - May 2002 - Status Query - Please respond - Re: Patch to avoid 'Connection reset by peer' error for rsync on cygwin

Hi.

On the one hand, I don't want to annoy anyone with repeated emails :-), but
on
the other, I would like to know the chances of the patch making it in to 2.5.6.

Even if the answer is 'Maybe - too busy to think about it right now', I
will be
satisfied, but if I need to revise it before it can be considered, I would like
to know that.

Max.

On  9 May 2002, Dave Dykstra <dwd@bell-labs.com>
wrote:
> The answer has to come from Martin and I haven't seen anything posted
> from him lately, he must be unavailable.
Sorry, I've been out of town this week.
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:28:06PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On the one hand, I don't want to annoy anyone with repeated emails
:-), but on
> > the other, I would like to know the chances of the patch making it in
to 2.5.6.
> > 
> > Even if the answer is 'Maybe - too busy to think about it right
now', I will be
> > satisfied, but if I need to revise it before it can be considered, I
would like
> > to know that.
This is the shutdown one, right?  I wanted to check about portability
before we put it in.  Snader's "Effective TCP/IP Programming" says
that

  shutdown(fd, 1);

is OK on both Unix and Windows and will avoid errors from closing the
socket.  So I think it's OK to put it in.  Winsock misinterprets other
values of the second parameter so we can't use them.

I don't understand why you need to only insert this call here and 
not in every case where a socket is closed.  If there's no specific
reason we should have a common shutdownsocket() routine and call it;
if there is a reason we should document it.

Thanks,
--
Martin