By creating a series of syncs from scratch, they will be sorted by Syncthing in the exact order they were created. Therefore, if an alphabetical order is followed when creating a series of synchronizations, Syncthing will respect this order.
Creating a new sync (or deleting an existing sync, then recreating it again)
the new sync will be inserted in an order that no longer follows the initial alphabetical order.
At least this happens to me.
I attach an image where you can see that the synchronizations - created by me with an ascending alphabetical order - are reported in the same order in the device. (Almost).
The new DCIM sync (or rather a sync deleted and recreated) is placed at the end, indeed not even. In fact it is inserted between the penultimate and the last synchronization without an apparent logic.
Moreover, from the image it can be understood that the devices affected by the synchronizations are two and in this example the synchronization “[HuaweiP30Pro].DCIM” has been inserted among the synchronizations “[TeclastT40Pro]” which is another device…
Is it possible to have the syncs sorted automatically - and maybe optionally - manually via drag and drop?
I guarantee you that all the blacked out part it is in perfect ascending alphabetical order excluding “/[P30Pro].DCIM” - incorrectly put at the end.
I have it in front of me, please take my word for it.
After all, before “.DCIM” there is the “P30Pro” matrix. As you can see, the “P30Pro” matrix is grouped at the top of the syncs, and the part before “[P30Pro].DCIM” is another fixed alphanumeric matrix that identifies the device.
No error. And by the way this problem happened other times.
It would really be useful to see the full labels here. The sort is alphabetical with one caveat — capital letters go first, meaning that if there are three folders called Apple, banana, and Cherry, they will be sorted like this:
All discussion was sustained from my mistaken belief. Sorry.
After two confirmations that automatic sorting exists, I searched more carefully and found that the separator dash “-” that I use in my syntax, for that single entry, had been replaced by the dot “.”
which changed - of course - the sort order for that entry.
