I nearly forgot the killer argument: The only option in ddrescue that has "logfile" in it's name, --domain-logfile, already uses -m (like map) as short form! I always wondered what -m meant, but it seems Antonio had a premonition ...
Greetings, Florian > Am 17.07.2015 um 17:46 schrieb Florian Sedivy <[email protected]>: > > Hello Antonio! > > I know I am quite late to the party, as there already is a release candidate > with "blockfile", but would still like to give my input. > > My proposition is "mapfile" to replace "logfile" > Alternatively "blockmap" > > You responded to this before: >>> Robert Trevellyan wrote: >>>> mapfile >>>> rescuemap >> Antonio Diaz Diaz answered: >> The problem with these is that 'map' is only mentioned in the ddrescue >> documentation in relation with the '--test-mode', while 'block' is mentioned >> in about all places related to the logfile. > > But that is exactly the reason why I would not use "blockfile". Everything in > ddrescue is about blocks. It reads from block-devices in portions of > soft-blocks and hard-blocks, it uses blocks as unit, and so on. Just about > every input or output file in ddrescue could be coined as a "blockfile". No > wonder "block" appears all over the documentation. If you are looking to > replace the word "log", the better choice is a new word, one not already > present in so many other contexts. > > What is the logfile? It is a map of blocks. (You even phrased it yourself > that way in the --test-mode description.) It is not a list of blocks, because > it does not list single blocks or some blocks. A "loose" logfile might be > considered a list of block-ranges, but a well defined logfile "lists" all > blocks and defines a status (think "color") for them, thereby painting a map > of blocks. The defining part here is "map", while "blocks" is redundant in > the world of ddrescue - what else? Therefore I'd slightly prefer "mapfile" to > "blockmap". > > > On the topic of making the logfile (or blockfile/mapfile/blockmap) mandatory >> Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote: >> As I read somewhere, "build a system that even a fool can use, and only a >> fool will want to use it". > > > I am absolutely with you on not creating it automatically. I thought about > this for some time and found too many pitfalls. > > But I am with Adrien and Felix for making it mandatory. This is the one most > common error, and it is easy to prevent. > I propose to allow a single "-" as 3rd parameter to operate without a > logfile. That way the experienced user has only minimal inconvenience when > making logless runs. > > Best Regards, > Florian > _______________________________________________ > Bug-ddrescue mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ddrescue _______________________________________________ Bug-ddrescue mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ddrescue
