[Design] [Last call] Bug 5403: Re-importing/Re-subscribing to a Trashed item

[Mimi Yin]

Hi Morgen,

Thanks for writing up this explanation. I had a couple of questions,  
let me see if I can come at this problem from a slightly different  
angle.

1. Is there a way for us distinguish between:
a. Chandler un-Trashing an item versus the User un-Trashing an item
b. Chandler removing an Item from a Smart Collection versus the User  
removing an Item from a SmartCollection

I think the original motivation behind the Exclusions list was that  
it would support users explicitly removing items from  
SmartCollections. Which is I think different (at least in the user's  
mind) from Chandler doing it (ie. Spam filter).

2. Is there a way for us to over-write the "version" of the item  
that's in the Trash with the "version" of the Item that's coming in  
on re-Import/re-Subscribe? In other words, the Item in the Trash has  
a bunch of stuff on it that says what SmartCollections it was a  
member of before it was Trashed. the Item in the re-Import/re- 
Subscribe doesn't?

Could we essentially Delete the Trashed version and start fresh with  
the Import/Subscribe version? I think that's the correct user mental  
model.

Mimi :o)

On Apr 5, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Morgen Sagen wrote:

> Well, it's complicated, but follow me on this:  :-)
>
> Removing an item from a SmartCollection places that item in the  
> Trash.  Items in the Trash don't appear in other SmartCollections.   
> Moving an item out of the Trash causes the item to reappear in the  
> SmartCollections it used to appear in.
>
> If we alter the behavior in the case of an import, and that import  
> moves an item out of the Trash, we would need to explicitly  
> *remove* that item from all other SmartCollections.  This means the  
> item is now in each of those collections' Exclusions list.  If the  
> user then moves that item to the Trash and later moves that item  
> out of the Trash, that item will *not* appear in the original  
> collections, since the item is in their Exclusions lists.  As a  
> result, the end result of moving an item out of the Trash is  
> inconsistent, and depends on whether an item happened to have been  
> 're-imported-while-in-the-Trash' at some point in the past.
>
> I suggest we leave the behavior as it is, which is consistent: any  
> time an item leaves the Trash, it re-joins its previous collections.
>
> ~morgen
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:
>
>> Morgen, do you have any issues with going with this proposal? We  
>> would want the behavior to be consistent for both re-Subscribe and  
>> re-Import.
>>
>> Please see original write-up for more background: http:// 
>> lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2006-March/004358.html
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2006, at 5:10 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mimi,
>>>
>>>> So I think the right thing to do is to have the Import and  
>>>> Subscribe
>>>> behave in accordance with Jeffrey's A proposal, which  
>>>> corresponds to
>>>> Proposal #2 above: Remove the item from the Trash, but don't  
>>>> restore it
>>>> to all the collections it used to be a member of.
>>>>
>>>> And stick with the B proposal, which corresponds to Proposal #3  
>>>> above:
>>>> Remove the item from the Trash and restore it to all the  
>>>> collections it
>>>> used to be a member of, for when users explicitly remove an item  
>>>> from
>>>> the Trash or undo Trashing an item.
>>>
>>> Seems reasonable to me.  It does mean a bit more work for the  
>>> sharing
>>> layer, though.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Jeffrey
>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>>
>>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
>>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design