Feature #8385

deleted images should go to "recycle bin" instead of being really deleted from fs

Added by oliviertoulouse - about 9 years ago. Updated over 6 years ago.

Closed: won't fix
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:


Estimated time:
Affected Version:
hardware architecture:


deleted images should go to "recycle bin" instead of being really deleted from fs


#1 Updated by calca - about 9 years ago

move file to trash instead of delete it.

use g_file_trash() and g_file_delete()

I thinking 'move to trash' the default action for old delete button and create shortcut 'ctrl+trash' to physically delete files.

#2 Updated by Tobias Ellinghaus about 9 years ago

The documentation of g_file_trash() states that not all file systems support this. It doesn't make clear which do and which don't. Do you know more about that?

#3 Updated by calca - about 9 years ago

houz form documention g_file_trash() return G_IO_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED error.
we need to handle it and call g_file_delete();

i will make a new patch ;)

#4 Updated by jetxee - about 9 years ago

Here is an updated patch; it seems to work (the program does indeed move images to the trash can), but I didn't test how it works on the file systems where the trash can is not supported (which file systems do not support it?)

#5 Updated by jetxee - about 9 years ago

To avoid uploading new patches, I continue merging with master in

#6 Updated by Tobias Ellinghaus about 8 years ago

I'm still not sure that I like the idea of using a trash folder. For me it sounds totally wrong. Let's see what the others think.

#7 Updated by tetreb - almost 8 years ago

I'm one of those who is using the trash bin. I always delete to trash, even if I rarely need it. I find it to be a convenient feature of the OS, and if I don't like it I can disable it. Also this means that applications which do not use it but delete completely, are annoying to me - just because I have to remember which apps use the trash, and which don't.

You could argue that DT has a reject feature, but still, the trash moves the files out of the way in a file viewer. Since DT has not all file organization features, I need, I can't rely on DT alone for organizing them. Then again, it is no huge bug for me.

#8 Updated by Tobias Ellinghaus almost 8 years ago

You are deleting files to organize them and rely on the OS to allow to restore them later? Strange workflow.

#9 Updated by jetxee - almost 8 years ago

Tobias Ellinghaus The workflow is to delete rejected photos, but mistakes happen. Let say wrong selection in lighttable. Many users are used to be able to recover the files.

#10 Updated by Simon Spannagel almost 8 years ago

  • Target version changed from 1.0.3 to Candidate for next patch release

#11 Updated by Simon Spannagel almost 8 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Closed: won't fix

After today's dev meeting in IRC we decided not to implement such a feature. DT's trash is the "rejected" mode of image rating.

#12 Updated by Jesko N over 6 years ago

Would it be possible to reopen this feature request?

I use DT's reject feature frequently to mark images for deletion. Some weeks later I go through my albums to delete previously rejected images physically.
It happens that I had a wrong selection and delete important images by mistake. It should be possible to recover such files without harddisc recovery tools.

For me the realworld metaphor of "rejecting" images is to put photos on a stack of "rejected" photos on my desk. Deleting means "throwing the stack to trash" (recoverable). Physically deleting is emptying the trash.

If it should be too difficult to use the regular OS trash there's an OS independent solution:
Move deleted images to a (maybe customizable) trash directory. Optionally the size limit of this dir could be configurable. When reaching the size limit oldest files from trash dir will be deleted automatically.
I've seen this solution in photo organizers on Linux (e.g. gqview uses such a 'safe delete folder' at <HOME>/.gqview/trash).

Also available in: Atom PDF

Go to top