First proposal to resolve issue #51.

[ramiromagalhaes]

Hello,

this is a first proposal to solve issue #51 . I am still testing it, but I'd like to know if the general approach is acceptable.

[dantran]

@ramiromagalhaes thanks for the patch, however, I have a feeling this is to compensate for your VPN flakiness. or a very slow disk io

[ramiromagalhaes]

Well, you are absolutely right. That is indeed the reason why I raised the issue. I guess it won't be a very helpful feature to most users, and there are workarounds I can try. Just thought that integrating it in the plugin would be nice. Thank you anyway. 2016-11-25 16:31 GMT-02:00 Dan Tran <[email protected]>:

…

@ramiromagalhaes <https://github.com/ramiromagalhaes> thanks for the patch, however, I have a feeling this is to compensate for your VPN flakiness. or a very slow disk io — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#53 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAkehHdDpEhjamUbPo0uKlndIf09da9kks5rBymVgaJpZM4K8hm-> .

[ramiromagalhaes]

Is it acceptable to change the patch in such a way that it always (independent of configuration) checks if the artifact already exists in its destination and if its has the same size of the source artifact to then decide to copy it to its destination?