Re: [O] [GSoC] org-merge-driver weekly update

[Carsten Dominik]

On 6.6.2012, at 15:50, Andrew Young wrote:

> Hi Robert Horn,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Robert Horn <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Another area that would be nice to address is taking advantage of the
>> information in date-trees so assist with merging.  This is similar to
>> the logic around keeping headlines in order.  With date trees there is a
>> date and sometimes time tag to help.
>> 
>> In addition to the occurrence order, there is also an ordering constraint on 
>> date trees that can be used to determine the proper delta.  You can use the 
>> date and time information in the headlines to determine the proper 
>> sequencing.
>> 
>> For example, the delta/merger for two files of the form:
>>    File 1:
>>    * Year
>>    ** Year-Month
>>    *** Year-Month-Day
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time1 stuff1 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time2 stuff2 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time4 stuff4 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time5 stuff5 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time9 stuff9 ...
>>    File 2:
>>    * Year
>>    ** Year-Month
>>    *** Year-Month-Day
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time1 stuff1 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time2 stuff2 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time3 stuff3 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time6 stuff6 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time7 stuff7 ...
>> 
>>    Should be:
>>    * Year
>>    ** Year-Month
>>    *** Year-Month-Day
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time1 stuff1 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time2 stuff2 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time3 stuff3 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time4 stuff4 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time5 stuff5 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time6 stuff6 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time7 stuff7 ...
>>    **** Y-M-D-Time9 stuff9 ...
>> 
>> This time aware merge logic will apply similarly to all levels of the date 
>> tree.
>> 
>> Date trees are recognizable by the combination of headlines in this
>> format.  A date tree can occur anywhere in an org file, but it will
>> begin with a level one headline of the form "* YYYY", etc.
>> 
>> R Horn
>> address@hidden
> 
> Thank you for the suggestion!  The program should support date trees.
> 
> I wonder if date trees specifically should be aggressively resorted
> during the merge (reordering more headings than necessary, without
> regards to the in-file ordering).  It is currently my opinion that the
> program should try to retain the original ordering as much as
> possible, only sorting the minimum number of headings necessary when
> merging has made the ordering ambiguous.

As a general remark, if you implement things like aggressive resorting,
I think it would be good to have such features optional, in some
way configurable.  Turning off all bells would then do a simple stable
outline tree inserting like you have in your prototype.  Increasing
complexity can and should be implemented, but I would like them optional
for users (opt-out is OK).

Greetings

- Carsten

> 
> Sincerely,
> Andrew Young