Christoph Bloch wrote:
> One more suggestion: Don't name the trash command "trash-file" unless there
> are absolutely compulsory reasons for it. My arguments against "trash-file":
> * It is not intuitive and therefore unnecessarily difficult to memorise.
> * It is unnecessarily long.
> * Every change in the name of programs causes confusion, so the new solution
> should be a clear improvement (which it isn't).
> * It is even wrong: Directories can be trashed, too.
>
> Just "trash" was much better.
>
I had a long discussion about that with the fedora people.
The discussion started on:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448122
And it followed in
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-
list/2008-October/msg00216.html
I would prefer "trash" as name but they don't allow me to name it
"trash" because "the name is too generic".
--
restore-trash crashes if the original path does not exist (even if it's in the
same trash can)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/310088
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-b...@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
--
universe-bugs mailing list
universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
