Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Add mechanisms to replace "copy+delete" with "move", for efficiency #23

Open
eugenesan opened this issue Jun 22, 2016 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #576
Open

Add mechanisms to replace "copy+delete" with "move", for efficiency #23

eugenesan opened this issue Jun 22, 2016 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #576
Labels
effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect impact-low low importance

Comments

@eugenesan
Copy link

Currently Unison moves files by copying them to their new location and then performing delete/backup.
It would be nice to have an option to enforce actual move operation.

That option will help immensely when big files are moved or folders are renamed.
@bcpierce00
Copy link
Owner

Happy to review a pull request. This is a pretty tangled part of the code, though: be warned. :-)

@bcpierce00 bcpierce00 added enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect volunteer needed impact-medium medium importance labels Jun 23, 2016
@schallee
Copy link

A potentially simpler but not as general solution would be to support a reflink''d copy supported by COW filesystem (eg: cp --reflink on btrfs).

@gdt gdt added effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more and removed help wanted labels Sep 14, 2020
@tleedjarv tleedjarv mentioned this issue Feb 6, 2021
Closed
@tleedjarv tleedjarv linked a pull request Aug 17, 2021 that will close this issue
Draft
@gdt gdt changed the title Option to replace "copy+delete" with "move" operation (feature request) Add mechanisms to replace "copy+delete" with "move", for efficiency Oct 29, 2024
@gdt gdt added impact-low low importance and removed impact-medium medium importance labels Oct 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect impact-low low importance
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Detect and propagate renames/moves instead of delete+create tleedjarv/unison
4 participants
@eugenesan @gdt @schallee @bcpierce00