From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Davison Subject: org files and directory hierarchies Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:58:34 +0000 Message-ID: <20090108155834.GE14694@stats.ox.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LKxHf-0007wj-7z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:58:59 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LKxHb-0007wX-No for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:58:57 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42206 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LKxHb-0007wU-KU for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:58:55 -0500 Received: from markov.stats.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.210.1]:42899) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LKxHa-0005wn-KP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:58:54 -0500 Received: from blackcap.stats.ox.ac.uk (blackcap.stats [163.1.210.5]) by markov.stats.ox.ac.uk (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n08FwnFj025299 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:58:49 GMT Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs org-mode mailing list I was starting to wonder about the relationship between the hierarchy defined by org files, and the file system hierarchy. This is just thinking out loud really. In fact that might be a generous description of a very vaguely-thought out idea. It is obviously a very standard situation that a file exists that is related to (a) heading(s) in (an) org files(s). And org provides the file link for dealing with this situation. But where does one store the file? The obvious answer is "in the relevant directory". Which implies that in addition to manually curating the structure of your org-files, you are also manually curating an appropriately-structured directory hierarchy. Fair enough; that is what people do with computers, except for those that stick everything on the desktop until they can't find anything... But perhaps there's an alternative, hard-line, org position? This would say something like: My org files are real. My directory hierarchy is merely a manifestation of my org files. So is there any future in thinking about an org extension that would automatically maintain a directory hierarchy, mirroring the hierarchy of headings in certain org files? For example, at the moment, one of my org files contains an entry saying I have to travel somewhere. I want to keep the pdf itinerary somewhere sensible. Here are two options that occur to me: (i) I lamely maintain some sort of meaningful directory hierarchy, perhaps ~/travel/year/month/, or perhaps ~/work/project/travel/, put the file in the relevant place, and make a file link in org. (ii) I throw all such files in a single directory, and rely on org links. But if the structure of org is truly reflecting the structure of my life / thoughts, then wouldn't it make sense for the structure of my directories to be doing that too? If so, then the job of maintaining the correspondence between org and the directory hierarchy should be left to the computer. This would give rise to an org which is a text-based "map" of ones working directories, with org files providing semantics and metadata to the directory hierarchy and its files. The directory hierarchy could be edited by org's structure editing commands. Etc. ... or maybe not. Was there any sense in the above? Perhaps others have already found good solutions to this. Personally I have org files and directories relating to the same subject with some sort of vague but messy correspondence between their structures. Dan -- http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~davison