James A. Donald wrote:
> tahoe-lafs wrote:
> > I do think this is basically a documentation bug rather than a
> > problem with {{{tahoe rm}}}'s behaviour, though. (A "destroy"
> > operation as described half-way down
> > http://allmydata.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2009-September/002861.html and in
> > http://allmydata.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2009-October/002957.html ,
> > in contrast, would act on files, not directory entries.)
> >
> > How about having {{{rm}}} output a message such as
> > "''n'' directory entries removed (rm does not delete
> > files)."?
>
> This is not going to add to user comprehension.The intent is: - to act as a reminder to someone who might already know that rm only unlinks directory entries, but who had forgotten; - to prompt anyone who doesn't know this but is curious about the message, to ask someone who does. The semantics of 'tahoe rm' can't actually be changed unless we add a 'destroy' operation. That would require incompatible changes to the crypto protocol, so it can't be done now. And making rm output a treatise on link-based filesystem semantics is obviously not practical. If you have a suggestion for improving the wording while still keeping it concise and informative, though, that would be helpful. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
