Hi Again, the wonderful users and hacker of nautilus. I would like to bring your attention again to a patch I have created originally using pure gnome_vfs functions to check if the source's parent is read only, and if so default to a copy operation instead of a move operation which previously caused hassle, confusing and much mess among especially converts from other operating system, as to why "Such a trivial operation needs to involve hassle and why do I even need to think about it and select copy from the context menu??" etc.. ;-)
So after realizing this patch is not good enough, due to it being inside a callback which gets called multiple times per each DND operation, Manny on the irc channel proposed I use instead of the native gnome-vfs methods, the nautilus infras. for file manipulation (to check if the source uri's parent is read only) , namely libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.h::nautilus_file_get_existing and libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.h::nautilus_file_peek_vfs_file_info Now my question is, should I get a new patch in the same a approach of the previous one (which actually followed another patch approach, from the file ownership bug) but with the this time cache enabled functions of nautilus-file.h, will this be accepted by the upstream maintainers? I would hate to start work on it, just to realize I need to re-do it again. Many thanks, and apologies for the spam :) Sivan On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 14:20 +0300, Sivan Green wrote: > Hi List! > > As I have been experiencing this bug for quite some time long, and been > bitched my converts that this is such a minimal thing for an "OS" to > know to do, I have decided to write a patch for it myself. > > My patch basically adds another check before deciding on a "move" > operation, in a similar way to what [1] is already doing, and as such, > [1] must be applied before [2] can be applied to achieve the fix. > > This is already scheduled for dapper-updates, but I would love to see it > fixed upstream as well, for benefit of other distros who have reported > this issue. (has also bee spotted in Fedora) > > Many Thanks! > > Cheers, > > Sivan > > [1]: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=63939&action=view > [2]: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=66519 -- nautilus-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
