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?

  • 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, 2020 at 14:51
  • unix.stackexchange.com/revisions/65087/2 added it in 2013
    – muru
    Dec 8, 2020 at 6:02

2 Answers 2


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.

  • 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, 2020 at 3:04
  • And it was upvoted for --info=progress2.
    – thanasisp
    Dec 10, 2020 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, 2020 at 16:14

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
              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
% 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).


You must log in to answer this question.

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