James Pifer wrote: > file again. Now in this case, it's possible that the timestamps were not > the same, because there's a good chance I did not use the preserve > settings with cp. BUT, I think I have copied files using Windows over ... > data/Baptism/DSC00681.JPG is uptodate > data/Baptism/DSC00682.JPG is newer Well it seems to be something to do with the timestamps by the "is newer". Maybe it is some 'feature' of the filesystem that is on the destination drive, is it mounted with any unusual options? But I don't really understand how mv inside the same filesystem as when you corrected the directory placement will mess with the timestamp. Maybe try: mv data/Baptism/DSC00681.JPG data mv data/DSC00681.JPG data/Baptism and then see if the rsync suddenly believes it needs copying again... at least you prove it is some feature of the mv action that changes the file state somehow. -Andy
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
