GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 603994
nautilus should remove deleted files from recently-used
Last modified: 2016-11-14 10:40:24 UTC
1. open a file 2. delete it with nautilus 3. it appears in the shell's recent documents 4. clicking on it points to a nonexistent location. I'm guessing gnome-shell should monitor gvfs/gio and either update the recently used documents, or delete it from the list.
*** Bug 609370 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
i think "recent and deleted" items can be marked with a big X icon over item
Diska, I'm not sure about that... - what would be the point in showing items that the user cannot make an action upon? - it would eat up the space that would be otherwise be used for more relevant (ie: not deleted) items.
sorry. I mean if you want to show all recent item like now it's useful to show the one deleted. what about Zeitgeist integration? If we want to use it like back-end we must know it's rules about deleted item
Nah, the ones that were renamed or moved should be updated, but the ones that were deleted should be removed from the list.
(In reply to comment #0) > I'm guessing gnome-shell should monitor gvfs/gio and either update the recently > used documents, or delete it from the list. It would make much more sense for nautilus to update the recently-used list itself. The deleted recent file will also show up in gnome-panel's recent documents list, and in the "Open Recent File" submenus of any apps that have those, so this isn't really gnome-shell's problem.
Moving to gvfs for now, we just do recent:///
And we just do gtk_recent_manager_get_items :-D It is not that easy as it looks, maybe we could do some monitoring in GVfs, but marking as a duplicate of GTK+ bug for now... *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 143385 ***
(In reply to Ondrej Holy from comment #8) > And we just do gtk_recent_manager_get_items :-D It is not that easy as it > looks, maybe we could do some monitoring in GVfs, but marking as a duplicate > of GTK+ bug for now... > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 143385 *** oh I can imagine :D Thanks for finding the duplicated