> If the subfolder was explicitly marked by the user as "to be indexed", > then yes, I agree. >
What do you mean by explicitly marked? Being marked via kcm? > > If, on the other hand, it was being indexed only because it was a > subfolder of an indexed folder, then I'm not so sure. The only reason the > subfolder was indexed in the first place, was its location. If its location > changes, why still index it? > > Depends on how you think of folders. I usually consider the contents of the folder while judging whether or not it should be indexed, not it's location. For example - A folder with, say, source code, shouldn't be indexed. EVER! And hence it doesn't matter where I move it. It still shouldn't be indexed. Another example is my Videos file. I often copy its contents to another hard disk when I'm done with them. But I would still like them to be indexed not matter where they are located. But then not everyone thinks like I do. :-/ I generally don't like remembering more things that absolutely required. Remembering which folders are indexed are which aren't is a laborious task. Maybe Dolphin could show some visual confirmation about the indexing status of a folder. > Well, to be honest, there are of course situations where this behaviour is > useful. But I don't think it is wanted in all situations. > > For example, it means that if you accidentally place a folder 'S' in an > indexed folder, it becomes "tagged"; if you want to place 'S' somewhere > else, so it won't be indexed, you either have to > 1) move all its files to a new dir, which is not "tagged"; if 'S' has > subfolders, then it's not enough to simply move over all its contents, > because these subdirs will also be "tagged" — you'll have to recreate the > whole directory structure; or > 2) use some explicit interface to nepomuk/strigi to convince them to > "untag" 'S' (remove it from the indexed folders list). > > I'm just being a little pedantic, so fell free to ignore me. :-P Tagging is different from indexing. But I get what you mean. > I guess the preferred option would be 2). > > Option 2 is available. It's present in System Settings. This patch doesn't track excluded folders. It should. IMO if a folder has been excluded it should always be excluded no matter where it is located. Could someone else share their views. Please. - Vishesh Handa
_______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
