Ignore rules (.nectendaignore) #54
Labels
No labels
area:docs
area:identity
area:ops
area:plugin
area:server
channel:community
channel:direct
channel:owned
channel:press
channel:social
e2ee-constrained
gate:at-ga
gate:pre-ga
marketing
parity
relay:absent
relay:planned
relay:requested
relay:supported
risk:additive
risk:contract
risk:none
usability
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
Nectenda/nectenda#54
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Part of #37.
What Relay does
Not shipped.
.relayignoreis their open PR #104, unmerged as of21 Sep 2026 — a marker file, context-menu stop/resume, a
cloud-offexplorerindicator and a remote-metadata cleanup prompt.
So this is a chance to be ahead rather than behind.
What we do today
No user-configurable ignore rules at all.
blob-policy.ts:28is hard-codedpolicy: dot-directories are ignored,
.mdis text, everything else is a blob.The hazard — this is where the effort goes
A file excluded locally must not be announced as deleted to other vaults.
That is precisely the bug class recorded in
docs/sync-limitations.mdunder"Renaming a shared folder emptied it for everyone else": a local view of a
listing propagating as an authoritative deletion.
Budget the time for the tests, not for the settings row. Under
CLAUDE.md'scentral principle, an ignore rule that deletes someone else's file is worse than
no ignore rule.
Risk
risk:noneto the server, but the highest data-safety risk in Phase 18.Verification
Vault A ignores a file that Vault B still syncs. B's copy must be untouched —
asserted, and the assertion must fail when the rule is inverted.
Moved to the Vikunja board as NEC-31: https://projectron.nerchure.com/tasks/31