4

Here I (and someone else) have approved an edit into the most upvoted answer, which was suggested by comment at 2017, but later I saw that this edit (--progress) exists already in this answer from 2013 and this answer from 2014. Should this be reverted as it copies an existing answer?

2
  • Can you link to the specific edit or at least the specific answer? "first" isn't very clear since the order the answers are displayed in changes.
    – terdon Mod
    Dec 7 '20 at 14:51
  • unix.stackexchange.com/revisions/65087/2 added it in 2013
    – muru
    Dec 8 '20 at 6:02
5

I think it's fine. After all, the end result here is that the accepted answer (which will be shown first since it is accepted) is now more correct. Nobody copied anyone else and what we really care about is that the next user who has this question will find a good answer.

So, since the edit makes the answer better and is actually necessary (without it, the answer is wrong as there's no progress2 option), I don't see any problem with it.

3
  • I wouldn't say the answer was incorrect - it was just misworded (it did always show the use of progress2 correctly as --info=progress2).
    – muru
    Dec 9 '20 at 3:04
  • And it was upvoted for --info=progress2.
    – thanasisp
    Dec 10 '20 at 0:02
  • Sorry for the change. I had a closer look into this. This edit is not necessary for sure. And it copies a different answer (giving false credits to a comment made many years later).
    – thanasisp
    Dec 25 '20 at 16:14
1

I think that posts can do with a further edit explaining the difference between --progress, --info=progress2 and --info=progress. All three are valid, and all three show different sets of information:

% mkdir foo; touch foo/{a..c}      
% rsync --progress -a foo bar      
sending incremental file list
created directory bar
foo/
foo/a
              0 100%    0.00kB/s    0:00:00 (xfr#1, to-chk=2/4)
foo/b
              0 100%    0.00kB/s    0:00:00 (xfr#2, to-chk=1/4)
foo/c
              0 100%    0.00kB/s    0:00:00 (xfr#3, to-chk=0/4)
% rm -r bar
% rsync --info=progress -a foo bar
              0 100%    0.00kB/s    0:00:00 (xfr#1, to-chk=2/4)
              0 100%    0.00kB/s    0:00:00 (xfr#2, to-chk=1/4)
              0 100%    0.00kB/s    0:00:00 (xfr#3, to-chk=0/4)
% rm -r bar                       

(Note that --progress is actually something like --info=flist,name,progress.)

% rsync --info=progress2 -a foo bar
              0 100%    0.00kB/s    0:00:00 (xfr#3, to-chk=0/4)

Some might be interested in the first form, but often enough I'm just interested in overall progress (the third form).

0
0

The edit is a copy of an existing answer, and additionally it's giving false credits to a comment posted years after the original information was posted (This could be just a mistake, the editor did not read the rest of the answers).

Copying existing answers, like if they were invisible, is highly discouraged. The rest of the answers are not invisible, the other answers are useful too.

There is no reason to copy the existing answers into one answer to promote it against the others, this is unfair gor the rest of the contributors.


Here is one of the existing answers (2014):

enter image description here

And here is the fresh copy-paste, with false credits (2020):

enter image description here

2
  • Are you talking about adding the use of the --progress option to the answer to correct it? What would have been the correct course of action?
    – Kusalananda Mod
    Dec 26 '20 at 18:07
  • I think to rollback that edit is the right action. The content of this edit exists already in different answers (also, all answers are correct, they have different options).
    – thanasisp
    Dec 26 '20 at 18:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .