Re: Feature request: confirm data loss when renaming folder with ignored files
Tõivo Leedjärv <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.unison.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAALvpZSfzNwnZ5M=aBtvhrjcC8C6BuFPMQ=3DCFZvx901w4fTA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 00:47, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: > > My take is: > > do not do any recursive deletes, ever > > only delete a directory if it is empty. Otherwise, error out and make > the user fix it [plus from the other mail] > So, if we add the "unison may not delete files other than if they are > explicitly deleted as part of sync" rule, and people have to manually > cope if they run into it, does anything bad happen? I think I could be convinced to get onboard with this but it may not be a one-size-fits-all. When you say "error out", do you mean that nothing should be deleted or only delete files/subdirs that were explicitly synced and leave the rest behind? I can think of three different scenarios (plus combinations of these). Each could have different processing. First, deleting (or renaming) a directory which has ignored children. Should this deletion not be propagated at all? Should it result in deleting only the synced files/subdirs? For reference, currently everything will be deleted. This seems ok to me, possibly with a warning. Second, deleting (or renaming) a directory which has children covered by "noupdatepartial" or "nodeletionpartial" preferences. Same questions as above. For reference, currently everything will be deleted. This does not seem ok to me, warning or not. Third, deleting (or renaming) a directory which does not have any ignored or "no*partial" children, but which does have updated or new to-be-synced children. Currently, a conflict is reported and if overridden to propagate the deletion then everything will be deleted. This seems ok and desirable to me. The current processing in the second scenario strikes me as unexpected and I think it could even be classified as a bug. For processing the first scenario (which this thread is primarily about), I can see both ways being useful (as also evidenced by messages in this thread), maybe going as far as controlling it via a user preference (which we'd rather avoid adding). -- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].