This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 163793 - Renaming aProject is very much time consuming and causes Data LOSS
Summary: Renaming aProject is very much time consuming and causes Data LOSS
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 162718
Alias: None
Product: projects
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Generic Infrastructure (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P1 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Milan Kubec
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-04-27 16:04 UTC by elishae
Modified: 2009-05-04 12:04 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description elishae 2009-04-27 16:04:42 UTC 
Renaming a project simply takes too long for big projects, when chose to rename the project's folder.

I've noticed that IDE does these..

1. Create a new folder with the specified name
2. Copy/Move all the files from Existing project folder (This operation takes too long)
3. Delete the current folder

Instead, IDE can just rename the folder.

This can be considered a candidate for performance.
Comment 1 elishae 2009-04-27 16:07:20 UTC 
This is the same in 6.7 Milestone Builds.

I wonder why this is not been noticed for such a long time.
Comment 2 elishae 2009-04-27 16:12:24 UTC 
Oops, 
I made a mistake in the original description, please correct it as follows:

2. IDE was JUST copying the entire structure and NOT deleting the OLD folder .

To me, it is waste of disk space. as I just wanted to RENAME the project and NOT clone it.
Comment 3 elishae 2009-04-28 10:38:52 UTC 
Also, I noticed that IDE did NOT copy the CVS folders into the new folder..

This has totally messed up my Dev environment... 

Raising it to P1 as this is a data INTEGRITY issue.
Comment 4 mslama 2009-05-04 12:04:41 UTC 

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 162718 ***