<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">If the subfolder was explicitly marked by the user as "to be indexed",<br>
then yes, I agree.<br></blockquote><div><br>What do you mean by explicitly marked? Being marked via kcm? <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
If, on the other hand, it was being indexed only because it was a<br>
subfolder of an indexed folder, then I'm not so sure. The only reason the<br>
subfolder was indexed in the first place, was its location. If its location<br>
changes, why still index it?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Depends on how you think of folders. I usually consider the contents of the folder while judging whether or not it should be indexed, not it's location. For example - A folder with, say, source code, shouldn't be indexed. EVER! And hence it doesn't matter where I move it. It still shouldn't be indexed. Another example is my Videos file. I often copy its contents to another hard disk when I'm done with them. But I would still like them to be indexed not matter where they are located.<br>
<br>But then not everyone thinks like I do. :-/<br><br>I generally don't like remembering more things that absolutely required. Remembering which folders are indexed are which aren't is a laborious task. Maybe Dolphin could show some visual confirmation about the indexing status of a folder.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Well, to be honest, there are of course situations where this behaviour is<br>
useful. But I don't think it is wanted in all situations.<br>
<br>
For example, it means that if you accidentally place a folder 'S' in an<br>
indexed folder, it becomes "tagged"; if you want to place 'S' somewhere<br>
else, so it won't be indexed, you either have to<br>
1) move all its files to a new dir, which is not "tagged"; if 'S' has<br>
subfolders, then it's not enough to simply move over all its contents,<br>
because these subdirs will also be "tagged" — you'll have to recreate the<br>
whole directory structure; or<br>
2) use some explicit interface to nepomuk/strigi to convince them to<br>
"untag" 'S' (remove it from the indexed folders list).<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I'm just being a little pedantic, so fell free to ignore me. :-P Tagging is different from indexing. But I get what you mean.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I guess the preferred option would be 2).<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div> <br>Option 2 is available. It's present in System Settings. <br><br>This patch doesn't track excluded folders. It should. IMO if a folder has been excluded it should always be excluded no matter where it is located.<br>
<br>Could someone else share their views. Please.<br><br></div>- Vishesh Handa<br></div>