Parametrize rclone command

[dantebarba]

The command "sync" is hardcoded in https://github.com/bcardiff/docker-rclone/blob/master/sync.sh. It should be parametrized to let users execute other rclone functions, like delete, copy, lsf.

[Tydus]

+1. copy is especially useful besides sync.

[dantebarba]

Pull request added: #7

[pfidr34]

Hi, I have updated this project to the most current version of rclone and added changes to allow sync/copy

https://hub.docker.com/r/pfidr/rclone
https://github.com/pfidr34/docker-rclone

[dantebarba]

@pfidr34 can you do a pull request too?. So we keep changes in the same project.

[pfidr34]

@dantebarba, I would but this project is all but abandoned at this point.

@bcardiff hasn't responded to issues or pull requests in well over a year. Hence me forking it and fixing all the issues and replying to everyone that was looking for help.

I've made extensive code changes, moved multiple builds to docker hub from rclone version 1.45 to current and transitioned to using my copy. My intent is to use my repo going forward. You are happy to contribute there if you would like.

[bcardiff]

Give me a couple of days to review the PR. Thanks for the contributions and patience!

[pfidr34]

@bcardiff , no offense, but are you really going to come back and start supporting this project?

You have several outstanding issues you have ignored for over a year with no response or code updates.

Not that you owe it to anyone to support the project, but what is the point of taking one PR unless you intend to come back and fully support it?

I have already resolved all issues and PRs you have open in my repo and have time to support it.

[bcardiff]

@pfidr34 no offense taken :-). I personally use this for some small servers backup. As long as the contributions don't interfere with that I'm happy to merge them.

I'm happy to see forks and let everybody adapt a solution for themselves. Each of us probably has some specific preference to handle the sync (that is what lead me to create this in the first place).

[pfidr34]

@bcardiff the bigger issue is that you are listed as one of the top containers on docker hub for rclone since they don't have official docker support.

This drives a ton of people to use your image and again, while you don't owe anyone support, you have a user base whose needs are not being supported. Just trying to help fill those gaps. I'll submit a PR but its gonna be at a whole repo level.

I did all of my code changes in a manner that would not impact existing installs if people happened to just re-point their repo to me and not edit any of their docker compose files.

[pfidr34]

Pull request added: #8

[dantebarba]

hey @pfidr34 chill out. It's an open source project, there is no need to pressure people to do things. If @bcardiff doesn't have time to spend on it, we should use another fork and merge changes into it. If you are willing to maintain the project that's fine and we can start using yours.

[pfidr34]

@dantebarba thanks for the note. My messages yesterday were out of frustration seeing an abandoned project that a dev had not replied to in 1.5 years and then as soon as someone comes in and fixes all open issues the dev is now suddenly interested in coming back to help.

I specifically mentioned to @bcardiff, exactly as you mentioned to me, that he does not owe anyone support and I also mentioned that I forked solely because I had the time and ability to handle issues and maintain the project.

@dantebarba I would be happy to accept PRs from you and work on the project in my repo going forward.

[dantebarba]

@pfidr34 any chance to add move command to your fork?

[pfidr34]

@dantebarba , done.

[bcardiff]

@pfidr34 @dantebarba I didn't notice there were some long-standing issues and PR. I use github for work so notifications are mixed on my end. Also, I did not perceive any hard feeling on the messages.

As for

... the bigger issue is that you are listed as one of the top containers on docker hub for rclone since they don't have official docker support.

That's because I started the wiki page and specifically state an alphabetical sort of repos with the intention to state that it was not a ranking of best docker image first, leaving that to be done by the user.

Thanks for the efforts involved to you both.