[Geany-devel] [geany/geany] 7cc443: Don't append file truncation warning if file doesn't exist - incorrect for remote files
nick.treleaven at xxxxx
Mon Feb 6 16:16:48 UTC 2012
On 01/02/2012 23:05, Lex Trotman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Nick Treleaven
> <nick.treleaven at btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 31/01/2012 23:09, Lex Trotman wrote:
>>>> Confusing the user is also harm. A (paranoid) user may worry some other
>>>>> got truncated.
>>> Ok, better put the filename in the message then, but preventing the
>>> message in the case where it is probable that actual harm has been
>>> done is really bad.
>> It would still confuse the user. Why tell the user something worrying that
>> may well not be the case?
> So why did you add a "may" message in the first place :)
> I still contend that it is more bad to hide a possibly valid damage
> warning than to cause consternation by a possibly invalid message.
>> BTW do you agree/disagree with:
> I'd agree that I (like you) would *expect* it, but sadly I don't think
> thats the case in the real world.
> I'm not sure we can assume all users are fully cogniscent of the fact
> that things are remote, NFS and samba mounts do a good job of hiding
> remoteness, but they still fail more often (in my experience) than out
> of disk happens. And to a user plugging in a NAS device is just the
> same as plugging in a USB disk isn't it? After all it is attached to
> the machine? Look its my g: drive!
> Come to think of it, USB disks can have the plug bumped etc. There
> are lots of ways for temporary failures to happen long before we get
> to things as "exotic" as ssh or ftp connections beneath GVFS mounts
OK, you persuaded me. Reverted.
More information about the Devel