Comment 107 for bug 214366

(In reply to Josiah Bruner [:JosiahOne] from comment #82)
> So this seems like a fine approach to me. I think that we should call each
> folder "folder(x)" instead of "folder-x", as it more clearly indicates
> duplicates though. People may already have folders called Name-Subname or
> the like, so another reason to use parenthesis.
+1
The "(x)" pattern is well known from file managers, so why differ here?
There is already another mechanism using the "-x" pattern e.g. in case of lost synchronisation via IMAP where panacea.dat resolves the redirection. Using the same pattern for different reasons could raise ambiguity problems.

> I also definitely think we should expand this to other folders, not just trash.
(In reply to :aceman from comment #84)
> But I think I could make that dialog with Yes/Cancel options meaning
> Rename/Cancel. For Trash, the rename would happen without question.
(In reply to Josiah Bruner [:JosiahOne] from comment #85)
> Yeah, for trash moving automatically is fine.
I think, the decision if a dialogue is shown should not be upon destination folder Trash, but upon the involved action:
Delete action -> automatically rename to Folder(x)
Move/Copy action -> ask user for renaming or cancel
Reasons:
- If user uses Move/Copy instead of the easier Delete he may have some special reason e.g. using the Trash as temporary location, so user should be warned as for any other Move/Copy.
- If we later extend with merge functionality, user is guaranteed to have the merge functionality even for Trash when using the Move/Copy actions.