On 17 September 2010 22:37, Vincent Ladeuil <email address hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> Martin Pool <email address hidden> writes:
>
> <snip/>
>
> > Mm, or better I'd like to see the rules file group them in to classes
> > of 'precious', 'junk', etc, then perhaps different orphan policies
> > depending on class.
>
> That exactly what I feared, you're trying to fit precious/junk handling
> into this bug fix which, while related, will not allow addressing the
> whole problem.
>
> I am *not* trying to handle precious files here not delete junk files,
> I'm just putting unversioned file away when they block deleting a
> directory.
>
> That's only *one* aspect and people are suffering from this *today*.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply this is part of this bug, it was a
discussion of follow-on changes. I think you are quite right to
change just this before bringing in a junk category. However, I do
think you should change the option values.
On 17 September 2010 22:37, Vincent Ladeuil <email address hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> Martin Pool <email address hidden> writes:
>
> <snip/>
>
> > Mm, or better I'd like to see the rules file group them in to classes
> > of 'precious', 'junk', etc, then perhaps different orphan policies
> > depending on class.
>
> That exactly what I feared, you're trying to fit precious/junk handling
> into this bug fix which, while related, will not allow addressing the
> whole problem.
>
> I am *not* trying to handle precious files here not delete junk files,
> I'm just putting unversioned file away when they block deleting a
> directory.
>
> That's only *one* aspect and people are suffering from this *today*.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply this is part of this bug, it was a
discussion of follow-on changes. I think you are quite right to
change just this before bringing in a junk category. However, I do
think you should change the option values.
--
Martin