Re: Patch to fix #314139 [REVISION PROPOSAL]

[Sivan Greenberg <sivan ubuntu com>]

Hi Again, the wonderful users and hacker of nautilus.

I would like to bring your attention again to a patch I have created
originally using pure gnome_vfs functions to check if the source's
parent is read only, and if so default to a copy operation instead of a
move operation which previously caused hassle, confusing and much mess
among especially converts from other operating system, as to why "Such a
trivial operation needs to involve hassle and why do I even need to
think about it and select copy from the context menu??" etc.. ;-)

So after realizing this patch is not good enough, due to it being inside
a callback which gets called multiple times per each DND operation,
Manny on the irc channel proposed I use instead of the native gnome-vfs
methods, the nautilus infras. for file manipulation (to check if the
source uri's parent is read only) , namely
libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.h::nautilus_file_get_existing

and

libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.h::nautilus_file_peek_vfs_file_info

Now my question is, should I get a new patch in the same a approach of
the previous one (which actually followed another patch approach, from
the file ownership bug) but with the this time cache enabled functions
of nautilus-file.h, will this be accepted by the upstream maintainers?

I would hate to start work on it, just to realize I need to re-do it
again.

Many thanks, and apologies for the spam :)

Sivan 


On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 14:20 +0300, Sivan Green wrote:
> Hi List!
> 
>  As I have been experiencing this bug for quite some time long, and been
> bitched my converts that this is such a minimal thing for an "OS" to
> know to do, I have decided to write a patch for it myself.
> 
>  My patch basically adds another check before deciding on a "move"
> operation, in a similar way to what [1] is already doing, and as such,
> [1] must be applied before [2] can be applied to achieve the fix.
> 
> This is already scheduled for dapper-updates, but I would love to see it
> fixed upstream as well, for benefit of other distros who have reported
> this issue. (has also bee spotted in Fedora)
> 
> Many Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sivan
> 
> [1]: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=63939&action=view
> [2]: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=66519