org-attach was the feature I needed.

Thank you.

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
wrote:

> Roland Everaert <reveatwork@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!
>
>
>