Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add ability to sync folder pairs in different paths #477

Closed
loucurapt opened this issue Feb 27, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Add ability to sync folder pairs in different paths #477

loucurapt opened this issue Feb 27, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
discuss way forward is unclear; needs discussion of approach to take and why effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect impact-low low importance wontfix maintainers choose not to work on this, but PR would still be considered

Comments

@loucurapt
Copy link

This is a feature request.

Would it be possible to implement a way in Unison to sync a folder between two roots that are in different paths?

Let me explain with an example:
Suppose I want to sync my documents, pictures, videos, etc. between my computer (let's say Windows) and my Android phone (through a WebDav server installed in the phone, for example).
With the correct roots, folders like "Documents" and "Pictures" are on the same path in both operating systems.
But for videos, it's usually "Videos" on Windows and "Movies" on Android. (I know I can use "Videos" on Android and it's what I use, but this is an example).
Symlinks could be used on Linux to work around this, but no such luck on Windows and Android.

It would be awesome if I could add a "path" configuration like this in those cases:

path = Videos -> Movies

(Considering that the 1st root is Windows and the 2nd is Android in this case.)

Oh, and thank you for Unison! I've been using it for quite some time now, and it's great!

@gdt gdt added effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect impact-low low importance labels Feb 27, 2021
@gdt gdt added discuss way forward is unclear; needs discussion of approach to take and why wontfix maintainers choose not to work on this, but PR would still be considered labels Dec 23, 2021
@gdt
Copy link
Collaborator

gdt commented Dec 23, 2021

I'm interpreting your feature request as being about doing renames within roots; obviously one can sync Videos on one system with Movies on another as the two roots.

This seems like a step to a fair bit more complexity and I'm not sure that's a good tradeoff, so I've added "discuss".

@gdt
Copy link
Collaborator

gdt commented Mar 22, 2023

@gdt gdt closed this as completed Mar 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discuss way forward is unclear; needs discussion of approach to take and why effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect impact-low low importance wontfix maintainers choose not to work on this, but PR would still be considered
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants