Additional question for skipping override files while coping when size of a file is different
|
3 years ago 1 Considered |
I'm not sure if I would be able to explain the situation and the idea but I'll do my best.
I noticed that sometimes when I am coping some files and the coping process is interrupted somehow, sometimes there would be one file that copied itself only in some part, not fully.
Then when I am coping again the same files I am being asked about what do I want to do with the files that are already there.
Obviously I want to skip the files that are already copied, so I select the option to skip overriding and tick checkbox to apply to all such cases.
So then it means that there would be one file that is corrupted in such a case.
I was therefore thinking that maybe the simple solution is to make some option somewhere whether we want an additional question window to appear if the system finds a duplicate file but the sizes are different.
Latest comments
Yes I think the file copying process could do with some refinements.
What if it would ask at the start of the copying process what you want to do if certain conditions are encountered? Instead of starting the process and having to wait until the first duplicate is encountered before you can specify what you want the pc to do, it would be better to specify these things right at the start. (And obviously remember these settings as the "defaults" for the next copying operation.
Things to specify would be:
* What to do if an identical directory is encountered. Merge, skip copying that directory, or create a duplicate directory with a slightly different name.
* What to do if an identical file name is encountered. Always over write, never over write, over write if file in destination location is older, over write if file in destination location is newer, over write if file in destination location is shorter, over write if file in destination location is longer, over write if file in destination location is same length but different. Or some combination of these.
Also, personally I hate the idea that Linux allows filenames that are essentially the same but are not considered the same because the CapiTaLisAtion is different. To me that's just idiotic. ReadMe.txt and readme.txt and README.txt and READme.TXT should all be considered the same.
Not sure what can be done about this though... at this stage we're probably way too far down the geeky rabbit hole to change this.
This is an issue for whatever file manager you are using, please use the forums if not sure before posting here