On 03/30/10 12:29 PM, Dan Price wrote: > On Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 01:20AM, Nicolas Williams wrote: >>> 1) In what order are the changes printed? If I saw: >>> >>> + /myfiles/rename_dir >>> R /myfiles/rename_dir -> /myfiles/rename_dir >>> >>> My analyzer would need to be smart enough to realize that the second >>> must have happened before the first, and that both paths need >>> evaluation. Right? >> >> Between two snapshots only the later event would be found, surely. (But >> I'm not the i-team.) > > The example was slightly messed up, sorry; that caused misunderstanding. > I'm worried about this situation: > > snapshot at 1 > mv /myfiles/name1 /myfiles/name2 > mkdir /myfiles/name1 > snapshot at 2 > > So, I'm fairly sure that between the two snapshots both events are > relevant. So the above might yield: > > + /myfiles/name1 > R /myfiles/name1 -> /myfiles/name2 > > It's tempting to read this as "name1 was created, then renamed to > name2." But that isn't what it means. For a human, the following > version portrays the events much more clearly: > > R /myfiles/name1 -> /myfiles/name2 > + /myfiles/name1 > > I'm not sufficiently expert about all the pieces here to understand > whether it's possible to efficiently or even sensibly sort things into > a "human friendly" order. > Apologies for not responding sooner, I've been playing a bit with the code. Based on what I've been doing this morning, I believe it will be possible to present the list in roughly chronological order. The order originally was just by object number, so you could get either of the outputs you show above.
-tim