Comment 8 for bug 888428

"Removing" the folder and adding the parent instead is what I expected to happen (by removing I just mean that I expected the parent folder to be sync'd and the sub directory to be implicitly included as per normal, no longer explicitly included as before). I would argue that if a user asks to sync the parent folder, this is what they would expect to happen, and anything other than this will come as somewhat of a surprise.

If a user desires the parent directory to be synchronised, but cannot because of this issue, I think they are likely to remove the subdirectory manually, and then add the parent directory to get what they want. If this is what a user has to do, why not have Ubuntu One do this for them? Even if it can't keep those files on the server without resynchronising them (which is obviously ideal) this workaround is still better, in my opinion, than doing nothing, as it does what the user would have to do anyway.

If this isn't done, I would say that a descriptive error message would be more appropriate than simply removing the option, as the latter would leave the user unable to synchronise their folder, with no idea why, which I image would be even more frustrating.

That's just my opinion, so feel free to ignore it :)