Calmh, My understanding matches how you responded to ildary. Shouldn’t happen automatically or users will be surprised (breaking one of the tenants the authors name as a design principle).
Ildary, consider if a file appears in the peer of a Send-Only node from some action outside of Syncthing. You can’t push the file to the Send-Only node because it’s send only. You can’t just automatically do the Send-Only operation and delete the file that appeared in the peer because the user almost certainly did not put it there intending Syncthing to destroy all copies (they would have used the trashbin for that function). Because of this is why the override button exists for Send-Only.
Kluppy, TLDR only because some developers are repeatedly saying the same thing over and over. You blame the repetitive chorus on the users. Perhaps users are only responding to some of the developer’s repeated demand to defend the user request. Developers are important and donate tremendous effort. Nobody would have any Syncthing without them. However, at some point, Developers need Users. I wish the growing chorus of users was heard without the same flippant “do it with file permissions” come back. In the last 3 days I’ve posted specific desires that cannot be answered with file permissions and that didn’t stem the “do it with file permissions” quip at all.
More pointedly users should not be crucified for simply having a request. Help them understand an alternative way? Yes. However, developers need to put equal weight to understand why that’s an insufficient answer for some users. I have answered Audrius’ requirement that a simple desire be defended over and over. Instead, in this post, I’ll address the deep architectural and philosophical reason that Syncthing must include SR, SO, and RO folder types to be complete.
Calmh, You spoke about “more override buttons” and I think you meant it in a negative way. Why negative? My point is not the button count, but rather that the third folder type seamlessly and intellectually perfectly dovetails with how the Send-Only folder type already behaves. The symmetry is a perfect match.
Opposite of what others want? I haven’t found any conflict unless someone is brand-new and misses a point about how Syncthing operates. At this conceptual level, it has nothing to do with programming or override buttons (those are all at the implementation layer and can be debated). There is no debate about the architectural issues and completeness of 3 folder types. Here’s what I mean…
The issue and request to the designers is much deeper. When you have communicators or data sources anywhere in the world in any architecture, the fundamental design character is that communicators can 1) send, 2) receive, or 3) both. Three things. No more. No less. I and others are asking that Syncthing is a “complete communicator” - capable of doing the natural range of being a communicator. It’s not clear why many of the Syncthing developers recoil at the suggestion of the full 3-set of communication capabilities. Although the repulse is heard, no developer has said why they hate the users so much for asking for it. If developers love tool chains and want to paste together OS functionality of file permissions for their needs, great and go for it! However, you’re asking your common smart phone user to implement file permissions? Please…
Not implementing the complete triad (SR, SO, and RO) would be like a wrench that only tightens bolts, but not loosen bolts. That would be unnatural since the work of a wrench is inherently (universally) both. Likewise, the scope of a communicator (Syncthing included) is to send, receive, or both. This character of the universe is fixed regardless of your or my opinion.
In my post yesterday, I proposed 3 bullets about how the 3 universal comm methods should be implemented with folder types and how they should each behave and interact in Syncthing. You have already implemented the SO and SR folder types. All I’m asking is you complete the logical triad to include the RO folder type. There is nothing cosmic or incendiary about completing the triad. In fact, when written out in 3 bullet points, it rather elegantly scopes the issue because there is no logical extension to 4 folder types, so when complete, you’ll know the work is complete.