org-attach was the feature I needed. Thank you.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> wrote: > Roland Everaert <reveatw...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > I am working as a sysadmin, In the organization, we use 2 tools to > > keep track of requests sent by the customers/users. As you can expect, > > those tools are not meant to be used to track all the gritty details > > of a sysadmin's job. > > > > So I am turning to org-mode (that I used for years) and its community > > to find a way to organize my job and being able to track what I have > > done and store the hundreds of lines of output from a command-line. > > > > I was wondering if it was possible to create directories and files > > with org-capture, based on data given interactively by the user. > > You can use org-attach in conjunction with org-capture, to create a > directory connected to an Org heading. > > > My intention would be to work this way: > > > > 1. Create a directory for a request or a group of tasks or a project, > > in short, an aspect of my job. > > 2. Create a file that will contain the information related to the > > request in addition to a journal allowing me to keep track of what I > > have done and store all the data that are useful to me. > > I'd say you don't need a separate file for this, simply the subtree of > the heading you're using to track this job. > > > 3. Store anything that is related to that request or aspect of my job > > into the related directory. > > That's org-attach again. > > > 4. Being able to search for a particular aspect or getting a list of > > them and access it. > > I actually don't think there's any built-in way of searching files in an > org-attach directory. > > > 5. When the job is done for an aspect, archive the directory. > > I think that would happen automatically with org-attach. > > > So far, I was using the configuration of norang, but I don't thing it > > is really adapted to my work-flow anymore. > > > > I know that org-mode is capable of a lot of things, but I was > > wondering if this is not a little bit to broad for org-mode to be an > > efficient tool. I was even thinking that all of this should be done > > through a server, with emacs being the interface to communicate with > > it. > > Beats me! > > >
