RFC: handling ignored files in deleted directories.

[James Westby]

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 16:49 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> In short:
>  - do we want to fix the bug, or should we say WONTFIX?

It would be nice, but I don't think it's critical.

>  - is the potential for dataloss to high to just delete ignored files in
> deleted directories?

I think it is too high. While it is likely to be a rare occurance
it would have a big impact, meaning that it is high risk.

>  - should the default ignore mean 'garbage file' or 'private file' ?

I think it should mean 'private file.' I believe only arch has another
class of files, and so we don't want users to have to learn about that
before their ignored files are safe.

>  - how should we implement

I don't really mind this. Listing garbage files wouldn't be bad.
I rarely add an ignore, and as most of the default ignore list
will become a default garbage list that will still work.

I think the lost+found idea is pretty simple. It's easy to understand,
and should be pretty easy to implement. It doesn't require learning
a new concept. I think the name of the directory should be different,
but that's a minor detail.

Thanks,

James