On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:25:17 +0100, Erlend Davidson wrote: > > On 12 Aug 2006, at 13:57, Jannis Pohlmann wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:41:16 +0000 (UTC), Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:57:28 +0100, Erlend Davidson wrote: > >> > >>> On 2 Aug 2006, at 17:37, Rodrigo Coacci wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8/2/06, Erlend Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Samuel Verstraete wrote: > >>>>> Hi Benny, > >>>>> > >>>>> 2 small issues... > >>>>> > >>>>> First: I was wondering if the expected behaviour of overwriting > >>>> files > >>>>> would be to store the "overwritten" file in the trash... i > >>>>> certainly was expecting this but it might be just me ;) > >> > >> I second that. > > > > I wouldn't say moving overwritten files to the trash is the expected > > behaviour. After all, that's why the "Are you sure you want to > > overwrite this file?" message pops up when you try to replace one > > file with another. > It's not the expected behaviour for us, because expectation comes > from past experience - no other file managers implement it. What > would a new user expect though? Nothing will ever change if people > implement what's already been implemented in other applications.
Well, of course you're right. But if I decide to *overwrite* a file/folder, I don't expect the old one to be moved to the *trash*. The terms are important (at least to me). Doing it that way (overwrite => move old stuff to trash) sounds like a crippled variation of a versioned filesystem. The only way to do this right - and this is where it's getting complex - is a *real* versioned filesystem and this is just out of reach for Thunar at the moment. - Jannis _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
