Copy files with their relative path-structure after duplicate-files-search

[Fla$her]

2georgeb
Well, congratulations. You've achieved your goal:

18.01.24 Added: Copy files, "Keep relative paths": wincmd.ini [Configuration] RelativePathCopy: Add 8 to not copy the drive letter / the server name for UNC paths) (32/64)
18.01.24 Added: Copy files: The option "Keep relative paths" is now also available in search results, copies entire path and changes drive from C: to C (not remembered between sessions) (32/64)

[ghisler(Author)]

Currently it's only a partial solution: You can only choose to copy with the drive letter (changed from C: to just C) and server name in UNC paths, or without them. It would be better to choose how many parts to skip, but that would require a lot of changes and also new translations. Maybe I will add that to the next major release.

[Fla$her]

2ghisler(Author)
For others (including me), this is a partial solution, but the discussion showed that this was the only thing the topic author needed.

[georgeb]

Currently it's only a partial solution: You can only choose to copy with the drive letter (changed from C: to just C) and server name in UNC paths, or without them. It would be better to choose how many parts to skip, but that would require a lot of changes and also new translations. Maybe I will add that to the next major release.

Many, many thanks to Mr. ghisler(Author) for making this possible, in particular on such short notice. As I see it - replicating the desired structure with complete paths will be totally sufficient as it is much easier for the user to manually "synchronize" the proper parent-Dir-level within the auxiliary-data-structures generated via copying - than it would be to correctly anticipate that by some automated process. So any amount of considerable extra-effort in "changes & translations" may not be worth it at all as the advanced capability intended is already there.

[georgeb]

2georgeb
Well, congratulations. You've achieved your goal:

Thanks for the congratulations anyway. As it may well be that your continued resistance to my proposal and my ensuing efforts to better explain why this could (and should) still be done may all have contributed to the final realization as it is now offered and has been implemented by our cherished Author!

[Fla$her]

As I see it - replicating the desired structure with complete paths will be totally sufficient as it is much easier for the user to manually "synchronize" the proper parent-Dir-level within the auxiliary-data-structures generated via copying - than it would be to correctly anticipate that by some automated process.

I disagree. The user needs a relative structure much more often than with the entire chain. And it is used not only for directory synchronization. Therefore, Christian should have considered at least searching in one folder to form relative paths with cutting off the base one, as in the case of Ctrl+B, but clarifying the current path in the active panel. Specifying the levels that you previously supported will also not be superfluous.

As it may well be that your continued resistance to my proposal and my ensuing efforts to better explain why this could (and should) still be done may all have contributed to the final realization as it is now offered and has been implemented by our cherished Author!

Rather, my questions and clarifications helped here.
I still believe that the implementation of your request doesn't match the name of the option. I didn't resist its implementation in any other form, only in this one.

[georgeb]

I disagree. The user needs a relative structure much more often than with the entire chain. And it is used not only for directory synchronization.

Who would've ever thought?! But the thing is that of course I wouldn't object to a refined approach in the future either. All I'm saying is that it is now a breeze for the user to select the desired parent-Dir-level himself within the entire data-structure once it has been generated and further operate from that level on. So the question remains - what amount of additional implementation-work would such a future refinement be worth?

Rather, my questions and clarifications helped here.
I still believe that the implementation of your request doesn't match the name of the option. I didn't resist its implementation in any other form, only in this one.

Yes, we all know you did "it" all alone! Even my initial proposal has turned out to be dispensable, only your efforts to bad-mouth and reject it were helpful in the end! Furthermore even my proposed name for the whole request may have been total blunder and in fact misbegotten as well. But I'm sad to say that I still couldn't care less!

[Fla$her]

All I'm saying is that it is now a breeze for the user to select the desired parent-Dir-level himself within the entire data-structure once it has been generated and further operate from that level on.

Removing unnecessary higher-level folders is offered manually? Unnecessary hassle.

Yes, we all know you did "it" all alone! Even my initial proposal has turned out to be dispensable, only your efforts to bad-mouth and reject it were helpful in the end!

To be honest, it's exhausting for me to read this nonsense. I’m writing in the context of your fiction about my resistance, not the exclusivity of my role in the result. You have a fertile imagination. Easy on the sass, alright?

Furthermore even my proposed name for the whole request may have been total blunder

That's exactly what it is.

[georgeb]

That's exactly what it is.

Are you saying in essence that such kind of "total blunder" has now become implemented reality?
B/c if so it's about time for you to re-evaluate your distorted perspective!

[Fla$her]

Are you saying in essence that such kind of "total blunder" has now become implemented reality?

And there is nothing funny here, because the author often has to correct mistakes or inaccuracies made by him (in the help, for example), which are pointed out by users in the adjacent section, especially since you yourself agreed with a more correct interpretation.

B/c if so it's about time for you to re-evaluate your distorted perspective!

I think you should do it. After all, it's not me who resists sound logic.