[FeatureReq] Versioning on both sides

Discuss new features and functions
Posts: 2
Joined: 25 Apr 2024

charles

Hi,
thank you very much for your contribution with this software. It has grown to be a very good tool.

There is little to nothing which I could ask for but there is one thing that keeps slowing my synchronizations down and I would like to request a new feature: double sided versioing.

Scenario: Synchronization between Client and Server, two way
Feature: Synchronization -> Delete and overwrite -> Versioning
The folder to move the old file to when versioning is on the client side. The files to be deleted on the server side will be transferred to the Client side, slowing the whole process down. I just don't want them to be deleted but I do not care if they are just on one side.
Request: Add option ot have two Versioning folders: local and server side. When deleting files locally, move file to local versioning folder. If the file to be deleted is on server side, move the file to the servers' versioning folder.

Thanks a lot.
Cheers.
User avatar
Posts: 2288
Joined: 22 Aug 2012

Plerry

> I just don't want them to be deleted but I do not care if they are just on one side.

This line in your post is confusing.

> I just don't want them to be deleted ...
Suggests you want to retain files deleted or overwritten by your sync, supposedly using Versioning.

> ... but I do not care if they are just on one side.
Suggests you do not mind that Versioning moves left-side and right side deleted and overwritten files to a single, user selected location.
But that seems to contradict the essence of your post.
A typo?
Posts: 2
Joined: 25 Apr 2024

charles

Sorry. I'll try to reformulate:
FFS gives the option to keep a version of the old files for some days instead of deleting or modifying them. I use the option of retaining those old files for 90 days before deleting them for good. Like an automatic back-up option. As for now, it backs up everything on one side of the synchronization, i.e. there is only one folder to enter as versioning folder.

I am suggesting to have such a versioning folder on either side instead of having only one folder, thus avoiding having to move all the files that should be deleted on the server to the client.

Backup files on the server side stay in the server for x days.
Backup files on the client side stay in the client for x days.

I hope I could explain myself a bit better now...
User avatar
Posts: 3611
Joined: 11 Jun 2019

xCSxXenon

Sounds like OP is requesting that each location have its own versioning path, and then deleted/overwritten files would go to the locally specified versioning path instead of the global one configured for the configuration. Similar to how global and local filters work now.
User avatar
Posts: 2288
Joined: 22 Aug 2012

Plerry

@charles
That is how I understood your initial post.
But the last part of your line I quoted is in contradiction with the rest of your post, because it suggests you are OK with versioning being in a single location, instead of separate locations for for files deleted from or overwritten in your left, respectively right location.
Hence my reaction to your initial post.

@CSxXenon
When using multiple left-right base folder pairs, you can already choose to use local (left-right pair specific) Sync settings, including a left-right pair specific Versioning location for each left-right pair for which you select to use local Sync settings. But presently the global (and potentially local) Versioning location is shared between the left and right base location (of each left-right pair).
However, TS's proposal is to have a separate Versioning location for the left and for the right base location, and is probable (my guess) based on a single left-right base location pair.
If Zenju would decide to go that route, the use of multiple left-right folder pairs would also need to be considered, and would then involve the need to specify individual Versioning locations for each of the left locations and for each of the right locations.
User avatar
Posts: 3611
Joined: 11 Jun 2019

xCSxXenon

Your response to my post is, in fact, how I also understood it. I may not have worded it correctly, as more specifically it is almost a local setting under a local sync-pair. We seem to be in agreeance