A good while ago I asked about difference between --delete-during/delay
and --delete-after, when per-directory files are updated (all is
perfectly clear for me here), but during the discussion there was a hint
made by Wayne, that the outcome can differ in more situations:

" It is useful for things such as --delay-updates --delete-delay (to
have all updates happen more rapidly at the end), and the option avoids
an extra dir-scan delete pass in such a case. And for folks that don't
have per-dir filter files being updated, it works the same as
--delete-after (if we disregard certain backup-file cases where the
suffix is not excluded), just more optimally. "

If I understand it correctly - those "backup-file cases" mean -b option
and - accidental or deliberate - override of the protect rule added
implicitly by rsync (as explained in the man page). But if this rule is
overriden (effectivly allowing deletion of backuped files), then
assuming no per-dir rules are changed, the outcome will be the same
regardless if we use --delete-during + --delete-delay or --delete-after.

So there must be something I missed or misunderstood. Could someone
provide me a simple example of such backup-file case ?
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html