Before posting, and to avoid disappointment, please read the following:
- This forum is not for 2BrightSparks to provide technical support. It's primarily for users to help other users. Do not expect 2BrightSparks to answer any question posted to this forum.
- If you find a bug in any of our software, please submit a support ticket. It does not matter if you are using our freeware, a beta version or you haven't yet purchased the software. We want to know about any and all bugs so we can fix them as soon as possible. We usually need more information and details from you to reproduce bugs and that is better done via a support ticket and not this forum.
- If you are entitled to technical support then please submit a support ticket. Please do not post the same question to the forum and also via a support ticket. Once again, 2BrightSparks does not provide technical support via this forum.
Flat file copy (ignore folder structure)
-
morice
- Advanced
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:13 pm
Flat file copy (ignore folder structure)
Is it possible to only copy the contents of (sub)folders into a single destination folder, without the original folder structure?
-
Swapna
- Expert
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:22 am
Re: Flat file copy (ignore folder structure)
Hi,
SyncBack does not support flattening the folder structure. It copies files on Source to the same folder structure on Destination. For additional details, please read this KB article:
https://help.2brightsparks.com/support/ ... 3000336207
Thank you.
SyncBack does not support flattening the folder structure. It copies files on Source to the same folder structure on Destination. For additional details, please read this KB article:
https://help.2brightsparks.com/support/ ... 3000336207
Thank you.
-
morice
- Advanced
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:13 pm
Re: Flat file copy (ignore folder structure)
Thanks, nice to see there is an article about it. I probably could have found that.
Though i think the reasoning for not implementing it 'because it could potentially be dangerous' is a little silly, as this program is already capable of many much much more dangerous options as is. I think the users are cable of discerning the pro's and cons of such a feature. And the fact that it would void the restore option seems obvious to me, but a simple warning would probably suffice if it were to be implemented.
What to do with duplicate filenames during the same run, well that would be something to think about. But i'd be fine with it being up to the user to avoid that happening.
Though i think the reasoning for not implementing it 'because it could potentially be dangerous' is a little silly, as this program is already capable of many much much more dangerous options as is. I think the users are cable of discerning the pro's and cons of such a feature. And the fact that it would void the restore option seems obvious to me, but a simple warning would probably suffice if it were to be implemented.
What to do with duplicate filenames during the same run, well that would be something to think about. But i'd be fine with it being up to the user to avoid that happening.