On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Nick Treleaven <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/01/2012 21:36, Lex Trotman wrote: >>> >>> Anyway, I don't know how to improve the situation. My commit is necessary >>> to >>> > avoid confusing users about truncation on a local file that doesn't >>> > even >> >> No, neither do I, but we do get complaints about truncated files on >> network shares/gvfs every so often, thats why we added the message. > > > IIRC I added the message because of unexpected truncation of files on any FS > that has run out of space.
It doesn't actually matter what the initial trigger for adding it was, it also indicates harm in the remote case, and one of the (war and peace sized) ML threads was triggered by complaint about truncation of remote files IIRC. > > >> So this change actually prevents the message in its main use-case, >> where harm may have been done, in favour of a use-case where no harm >> has been done, and that is bad. > > > Confusing the user is also harm. A (paranoid) user may worry some other file > got truncated. Ok, better put the filename in the message then, but preventing the message in the case where it is probable that actual harm has been done is really bad. Cheers Lex > > When writing to a networked file I would expect users to take more notice of > error messages, i.e. they should expect a save error might cause truncation. > > > Nick > _______________________________________________ > Geany-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
