Re: [Evolution-hackers] Confirm on move folders?
- From: guenther <guenther rudersport de>
- To: Antony Stubbs <dolby paradise net nz>
- Cc: evolution-hackers ximian com
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] Confirm on move folders?
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:52:09 +0100
Anthony's reply seems to be intended for the list. Replying to list.
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 23:33, Antony Stubbs wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 20:30, guenther wrote:
> > Just some quick words here.
> >
> > First of all: A "dodgy" mouse is a hardware issue. Should any
> > application really implement workarounds for broken hardware?
>
> Definitely not! I completely agree with you...
>
> > > I accidentally drag folders sometimes too, but never far enough to
> > > actually move them. I just get a "you can't move a folder into itself"
> > > dialogue instead of the folder actually moving.
> >
> > Heh, I know this one. And I sometimes accidentally *start* moving
> > folders, but I never actually moved it. There is visible feedback while
> > moving, and pressing ESC does cancel this action.
> >
> > This sure is not possible with broken hardware, which may lead to the
> > cursor jumping right before releasing the mouse button. Again, this is a
> > hardware issue IMHO.
>
> My issue is probably mainly a hardware issue - *but* - I really think
> this is a very very valuable feature to add - as it is possible to
> accidental move a folder and over a slow connection with large numbers
> of emails (maybe hundreds of emails or maybe thousands)!
Anthony, you snipped the part, where I agreed with you (and some other
hackers) that an option to force confirmation of moving folders (or even
mails) would be a good idea.
It can prevent unintended heavy loads. Think of moving a local archive
folder to the IMAP server on the other end of a slow connection...
> Perhaps only
> pop-up when there's over a certain number of emails within the folder?
> say 10?
Personally I would tend to raise that number to about 100 or limit it by
size instead of count, but that is only a feeling. This sounds like a
very good idea to me, though.
Seems, we do agree completely... :)
...guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0 ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]