Feature #2171
Is it necessary to force the user to use a "pithos" and "okeanos" folder?
| Status: | Closed | Start date: | 03/07/2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Low | Due date: | ||
| Assignee: | - | % Done: | 0% |
|
| Category: | - | Spent time: | - | |
| Target version: | Alpha |
Description
Is it necessary to force the user to use a "pithos" and "okeanos" folder?
For example, Microsoft Live Mesh allows users to sync any folder directly, without any subfolders being created.
I acknowledge that at least creating the "pithos" folder may be useful in the case that the client also created a "shared" folder, but this doesn't seem to happen at present?
Just a thought that it may increase useability.
History
#1 Updated by Panagiotis Kanavos about 11 years ago
- Status changed from New to Resolved
The "pithos" folder corresponds to the main "pithos" container. An account may have multiple containers. Initially we didn't have a separate "Pithos" folder and other containers appeared as folders below the root folder. This was dropped as there were concerns there would be confusion if a user had a folder below the "Pithos" container named the same as another container.
As for the Okeanos folder, the user now has the option to create this folder when adding an account or use an existing folder as is, thus allowing synchronisation of existing files.
#2 Updated by Panagiotis Kanavos about 11 years ago
- Target version set to Alpha
#3 Updated by Panagiotis Kanavos about 11 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Closed