Yes I can certainly submit another PR for that also. This would probably have to wait a couple of weeks. I wouldn’t just want to do a cosmetic change, but do this a bit more thorough. Let me start a new thread on the naming convention.
I have same requirement for a corporate environment. Not as many receiver nodes as @Heiko’s tree but still the model and goal are the same.
Feasible but would be more elegant if syncthing had the new folder type baked in.
I’ve been working on the functionality for a while, unfortunately we haven’t been able to get to an agreement yet on all the features that need to be incorporated. The change is getting more and more complicated. Keep watching this PR for updates.
It was always going to be complicated, it’s just that it’s difficult to pinpoint the complexities before actually attempting it. If it was trivial to get it right we would have had the feature a long time ago. 
This is part of the game ;). Keep pushing … part of the implementation is working out a stable solution.
I really appreciate your work! If I’d have time, I’d would have done it by myself.
Jakob is tough but fair ;).
That is as bad as settting send only and forgetting it later. We need better master slave relation ship, at least some way to see it in the interface. It is not obvious if a folder master or not,
My recommendation is to have a one time send or pull options, when the sync is done fully the folder resets to normal send/pull setting.
Rsync is your one-off tool.
1 Like
It is obvious, as the send only folder has a lock symbol instead of the normal folder symbol.
what is override?