On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Eric Blake <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 12/29/2014 04:49 PM, Phil Miller wrote:
> > * find/defs.h (struct options): Add a 'sort' flag.
>
> A boolean flag is insufficient.  The default should remain unsorted, but
> you should offer the ability to sort by either name or inode, which
> means -sort needs to take an argument to say which sorting method to use.
>

The motivating use case for this patch is in enumerating files in a stable
order, from <https://bugs.debian.org/719845>. Sorting by inode doesn't
offer that benefit, since it will vary every time a given tree is
generated. I can imagine a potential performance benefit to downstream
consumers in sorting by inode (putting subsequent disk access in roughly
consecutive order), but I don't see much payoff in implementing it without
some more concrete motivation.  That said, if it will smooth integration,
it's easy enough for me to just go ahead and implement.

> I don't know if this is considered trivial enough to not require explicit
> > copyright assignment. If it isn't, then I'll be happy to go through that
> > process.
> >
> >  find/defs.h    |  3 +++
> >  find/find.1    |  9 +++++++++
> >  find/ftsfind.c |  8 ++++++--
> >  find/parser.c  | 12 ++++++++++++
> >  find/util.c    |  1 +
> >  5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Code-wise, it might be trivial, but by the time you add documentation, a
> NEWS entry, and testsuite coverage of the new feature, it will be
> non-trivial, so yes, you should pursue the copyright assignment process.
>

Will do.
_______________________________________________
Findutils-patches mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/findutils-patches

Reply via email to