On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 04:04, Mike Perkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikep@randomtraveller.org.uk">mikep@randomtraveller.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I support this suggestion. One thing I've always found is that it is difficult to remember video filenames because they are so long, particularly if you are hunting for a file over several storage volumes. It's easy to write the wrong thing down when you have a long string of pseudo-random digits.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Indeed. This is great source of tedium for me too, often.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
This is because so much information is encoded into the filename. IMO this information should be kept where it belongs, in the database. Each file could be identified by a simple record_id value, say a 4- or 5-digit number, perhaps with a simple prefix indicating that it's a recording or a video or whatever.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Bingo.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Side benefit: if it is necessary to do a rescan and the channel_id changes, it isn't going to affect previously-recorded files, whereas with the current system old files now end up referencing the 'wrong' channel.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I didn't immediately think of that one; nice benefit. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Thoughts?<br></blockquote><div><br>This question goes to the heart of the filename's purpose.<br><br>If it's not for human consumption, then why put human consumables in it at all?<br><br>If it is for human consumption, it should be more usably so, to the point we wouldn't need <a href="http://mythlink.pl">mythlink.pl</a> just to reliably find a show's file. That's just not practical, and would probably be impossible to get a consensus on for format anyway.<br>
<br>I suspect the current scheme is simply the way it happened to come about early on, pretty much worked, and stuck for a while. I for one am glad to see it discussed, now that time has passed.<br><br>If file naming is to be revisited (which I would love to see), my vote (if I get one) would be for just the ID.<br>
<br>Looking forward to hearing what the project leadership thinks on this one.<br><br>EW<br></div></div>