Marco Wahl <marcowahls...@gmail.com> writes:
> Marco Wahl <marcowahls...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Marco> Please recall that only empty attachment directories would be >> Marco> removed, so removal of a directory--and in particular one >> Marco> that existed before its interpretation as Org >> Marco> attachment--wouldn't be a big deal AFAICS. >> >> Tim> Not as confident here. I can imagine workflows and other >> Tim> external scripts which might expect a specific directory >> Tim> structure that could be broken if a directory was removed (even >> Tim> when empty). Hence my suggestion it needs to be something you >> Tim> can turn off. >> >> Tim> Likely this is something which should be controllable via a >> Tim> custom setting? >> >> Marco> To be honest I'd rather not make another customizable thing >> Marco> out of it to keep the overall complexity low. >> Marco> >> Marco> OTOH we could easily introduce e.g. customizable >> Marco> org-attach-delete-empty-dirs-on-sync. >> >> Tim> Appreciate the problem with far too many customization options, >> Tim> but when it comes to software 'automatically' doing something, >> Tim> like removal of an empty directory, especially when it might >> Tim> not have been responsible for creation of the directory, it is >> Tim> better to provide some way to allow the user to turn off the >> Tim> behaviour. I would default to having it enabled though. >> >> Colin> I'm afraid I for one often have empty attach directories >> Colin> which I leave alone knowing that one day soon - sometimes >> Colin> very soon - they will be used again. Cannot the user be asked >> Colin> if he wants the directory removed? >> >> Thanks Tim and Colin. >> >> We could introduce multiple possibilities to choose from. >> >> 1. Ask in case of an empty directory if it should be deleted. >> 2. Don't ask. Don't touch an empty directory. (The state now.) >> 3. Don't ask. Delete empty directory. >> >> We could also make 3. the default setting. > > I made a mistake here. > > If we do this I vote for option 1. (not 3.) as default (following the > suggestion by Colin) since it is the most interactive variant. If the > question gets annoying the user can switch to one of the other options. > That seems quite resonable to me. -- Tim Cross
