files deleted

AnotherGuest. · Post by **AnotherGuest.** » July 31st, 2005, 4:38 am

Uh, no, the rule is, please don't add comments to bugs unless you have information that actually fixes the problem. That's not the place for lobbying. It just clogs up the bug reports and pisses off the developers. Don't even add case reports there unless they add new facts.

That may be why bug 270705 got off to a rocky start. It started off with an attitude. As Joe Friday said, "Just the facts, ma'm".

greenknight · Post by **greenknight** » July 31st, 2005, 5:49 am

I just meant you should vote for the bug, not that you should add comments. Shoulda been clearer I guess...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » July 31st, 2005, 8:46 am

I think it will get fixed all right. 270705 is recent and it's assigned to Blake Ross, the Esteemed Creater. But there does seem to be a conflict with program design. Votes wouldn't hurt. Some of those bugs have no votes, and that one only has 6.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » August 24th, 2005, 9:47 am

Bug 278230 has been marked a duplicate of 302087. Go figure.

It now appears that none of these bugs is going to be fixed except by volunteers. So feel free to take one if you can provide clean code.

I think 302087 involves less coding. It involves an almost trivial change to an existing dialog box, so it should be pretty easy to change and get checked in. It also has some official blessing. Allowing Fx to delete only its own profile files seems like a bulletproof way to fix the problem, but the bug is officially "resolved" at the moment, and it might require a bit more coding.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » August 24th, 2005, 9:49 am

P.S. I should have written that 278230 was assigned to Blake Ross, not 270705. However, it may be a moot point if the bug is "resolved".

kenace0 · Post by **kenace0** » August 24th, 2005, 10:18 am

do a find files/folders for ( *.bak ) and look for mozilla firefox there sould be a profile.bak

AnotherGuest. · Post by **AnotherGuest.** » August 24th, 2005, 10:27 am

kenace0,
It's not the profile data we're worried about. Under some conditions, user files could be deleted, possibly resulting in severe data loss.

kenace0 · Post by **kenace0** » August 24th, 2005, 10:50 am

if the man deleted his profile it may still be there as a bakup file!
if so he can recover from it

AnotherGuest. · Post by **AnotherGuest.** » August 24th, 2005, 10:54 am

He didn't just delete his profile. The Profile Manager deleted his entire "My Documents" folder and all its contents. You can easily verify this bug if you like.

kenace0 · Post by **kenace0** » August 24th, 2005, 11:03 am

AnotherGuest. wrote:He didn't just delete his profile. The Profile Manager deleted his entire "My Documents" folder and all its contents. You can easily verify this bug if you like.

can you let hem answer?

ajayluks · Post by **ajayluks** » August 24th, 2005, 11:10 am

You haven't read this thread properly Kenace0. The user selected a custom location for their profile data (in this case 'My Documents') but didn't realise that they needed to create a special folder for it within My Documents. That meant that when they deleted that profile, Firefox wiped their entire 'My Documents'. It is a known 'bug' as has been explained. 'AnotherGuest' do know what they're talking about and if you (kenace0) did (i.e., you'd actually read the whole thread) you wouldn't have wrote your suggestion since you'd have realised it was irrelevant.

AnotherGuest. · Post by **AnotherGuest.** » August 24th, 2005, 11:14 am

Ajayluks,
I don't know what suggestion you are referring to, but as for having read this thread, I wrote a significant part of it.

Edit: Oh, you probably mean his suggestion to verify the bug. I thought verifying it would be a pretty vivid way of finding out what the bug was about. Just a mischievous suggestion.

kenace0 · Post by **kenace0** » August 24th, 2005, 11:18 am

ff makes bakup of the profile and puts theme in the same place if u did not delete the backup it is still there

ajayluks · Post by **ajayluks** » August 24th, 2005, 11:20 am

AnotherGuest. wrote:Ajayluks,
I don't know what suggestion you are referring to, but as for having read this thread, I wrote a significant part of it.

Edit: Oh, you probably mean his suggestion to verify the bug. I thought verifying it would be a pretty vivid way of finding out what the bug was about. Just a mischevous suggestion.

I was referring tyo KENACE0 not you!

I was suggesting to KENACE that it was their suggestion that was wrong NOT yours. I'm sorry if you have read and misunderstood my post. LOL

AnotherGuest. · Post by **AnotherGuest.** » August 24th, 2005, 11:25 am

Oops. Speaking of not being able to read. :turn-l:

Kind of funny, actually.