Re:Unison File Synchronizer
by mindslight on Thursday August 15, 2019 @05:58PM
(#20710116)
Eh, we can disagree on a precise definition of abstract "conflict resolution", but I'm referring to unison's behavior with -batch. There's no logical conflict that needs to be resolved by user choice or algorithm. When looking at the larger system of all the replicas, unison's behavior is to simply undelete a file that was explicitly deleted.
> Why? IMAP already takes care of synchronization, without any potential problems.
Less configuration, less attack surface. Sharing mail over NFS is a common thing, and I view unison as a type of distributed filesystem.
That is conflict resolution, over the set of files. Which is why Unison provides the "reconciling changes" UI.
> Which implies you need to choose one node from {A,B,C} that is the most likely to be available to sync the other two to.
Yes, that is a way to avoid update conflicts.
> IMO a topological sort would be an even stricter requirement than spanning tree, in that if one node becomes available, you can't sync anything "below" it!
Yes, it is also a way to avoid update conflicts.
> (eg I use unison for maildir).
Why? IMAP already takes care of synchronization, without any potential problems.