[hnarn]

> I would expect openrsync to create a remote file /tmp/services, but instead it creates /tmp/services/services.

As someone who has also suffered uncountable years of abuse from rsync, I understand the impulse, but I think it makes a lot more sense (and is a safer default) to create a second ”services”.

If we have a chance to change rsync defaults to something less insane and save future generations from this mess I think we should.

[kbenson]

We don't, since we're not implementing a UI from scratch, we're matching something else.

Of the two possible worlds where in one this reimplementation matches what some see as annoyances in the interface or in another they mostly match the interface except for a few cases where the purposefully diverge (for no good technical reason), IMO the latter is far worse and causes more enexpected behavior.

At most, add a special flag to opt into different default behavior so nobody is surprised by running the same command on different systems and getting different behavior.

[kbenson]

To be absolutely clear, since on reading this later it may come across as me masquerading as part of the OpenBSD project, I am not affiliated with them. My "We don't" was in response to "If we have a chance to change rsync defaults" which we, as the general public and users (and very likely also any reimplementors) don't have that chance, because rsync has a solid UI that people and tools have integrated for over a decade, and that's not something you can just change.

[em-bee]

you responded to a comment that states "we should", your comment is a clear response to that. at least i understood it as intended.