[mythtv] Strange scheduler bug

[Bruce Markey]

J. Donavan Stanley wrote:
> Bruce Markey wrote:
> 
>> First, in all of your previous postings, you've referred to
>> a "flag" to mark of something as been "watched". You never
>> once suggested an option checkbox to indicate if this "watched"
>> flagging should or should not be applies. In this message, there
>> are several references to it as being optional. I'm not impressed
>> by your revisionist responses.
>>
> 
> I'm sooooo sorry I didn't produce a detailed design document for you to 
> review before making any sort of suggestion. I wasn't aware that you 
> were incapable of reading between the lines or asking for clarification.

You should be sorry but you're not because then you wouldn't
be able to change your mind about what you mean whenever you
feel it's convenient to make arguments. And, yes, I've had
to read between the lines as you slither around flip flopping
to whichever side of a concept seems useful to you at the time.

>> J. Donavan Stanley wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce Markey wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Donavan Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As a matter of fact, I don't. I said so before. When I finish
>> watching something, I delete it. I periodically look at old
>> recordings and delete the things that I realize that I will
>> never watch. These are things that I did intend to record at
>> the time but now have enough other things that I know I will
>> never get around to watching everything. This is by design.
> 
> 
> So then don't use the setting.

Exactly, because there is no such setting and there is no
need for one.

>> You, on the other hand, claim that you don't delete things
>> even after you've watched then but want auto-expire to eventually
>> remove them for you. This makes no sense to me and I can't
>> believe that any sizable percentage of myth (or any DVR) users
>> would do this. I frankly believe you said this for the sake
>> of argument to justify you suggestion.
> 
> 
> I have a large number of things that I've got sitting around that I 
> *might* want to watch again.  I have large number of things that I've 
> not yet gotten around to watching but will when I have time.  Now then, 
> if auto expire ever kicks in on my machine (I'm 40G away from that being 
> a possibility) I'd rather it delete the things I have watched but left 
> there in case I wanted to see it again before it deleted the thing I 
> hadn't yet watched.

Well, by the time it gets down to 10GB maybe you should spend
a few minutes deciding for yourself what goes and what stays.

>   And if it's going to be recording something because 
> it's auto expired I'd rather not deal with recording stuff I've 
> watched.  HOWEVER it might be useful for it to rerecord something I 
> didn't get a chance to see.

Yep, there is no way for the system to know which is which
but you can choose which button to click as you delete.

> I don't *need* to make things up in order to make my case.

But you have. You though of something that you thought sounded
cool and went looking for a problem to justify the cool solution.

"Hmmm, with a watched flag you could change the the auto expire
so that watched recordings were a week older than they really are."

No one, including yourself saw this as a problem that needed
a solution. It wasn't until after you had the idea that you
went looking for a problem you could pass off as a justification.
You then reiterated that you had done this:

"After that the thought occurred to me that we might be able to
leverage it to allow us to keep unwatched recordings around as
long as possible."

First, think of a solution then seek out a matching problem.
Deleting a file that is 3 months and 2 days old before deleting
a file that is 3 months and 8 days old adds no value whatsoever.

>  If/when I 
> sit down to write the code for the watched flag I could care less if it 
> gets included in Myth or not.  If Isaac feels it warrant inclusion he'll 
> include it, if not others that *do* think it's useful can apply the 
> patch to their own trees.

But I do care. This is a classic problem with all software.
After all the major functionality is in place, arbitrary little
things get added that don't add to the functionality but make
the software bigger, more complex and more confusing. I don't
want to see this or a hundred other things like it.

>> You've said before that you don't delete things after you've
>> watched them.Now you're suggesting that things that you're not
>> EVER ;-) going to watch should be deleted? 
> 
> 
> I've been suggesting the exact opposite the whole time for crying out 
> loud.  This is a SIMPLE thing:  Delete things I've watched before 
> deleting things I haven't.  I don't have anything recorded that I'm not 
> going to watch EVER.

Your putting words in all caps doesn't make your arguments
any more effective, it's just kind of *FUNNY* ;-). But no
matter, you've now stated two premises that I just can't
believe would be true for most users; keep things that the
user has finished watching and a requirement that they must
watch every single thing that gets recorded. I know several
people that use DVRs and I can't say that either of these is
true for any of them. You need these premises to make your
trumped up case and I don't believe for a minute that either
of these are true for you much less anyone else.

Everybody (+- margin of error) deletes shows after they watch
them. There is no point to keeping a long list of things you've
seen and try to comb through looking for things that you haven't
seen. You are not a slave to the machine and are not required
to watch every single thing that it records. That was the point
about Borneo. There are things that get recorded that I'm
never going to get around to watching. That's fine. I deliberately
record more than I can watch so that I can pick and choose.
Everybody (+- margin of error) else does too. Just because
you record Nova doesn't mean that you have to sit through the
one where John Lithgow talks about how cute dogs are. There
are things recorded on your system that you will never watch.


>> Am I to infer that you have a recorded list full of things that you've 
>> finished
>> watching (and waiting for the system to delete them) and you
>> carefully look through this list to find that that you haven't
>> watched and delete those if you decide you will never get to
>> them? 
> 
> 
> Yes I have huge recordings list, rather neatly organized into 
> categories.  And I do carefully go through this list looking for things 
> I haven't watched

What a waste of time...

 (which would be a lot easier do do if the system knew 
> which ones I'd watched and highlited the ones I hadn't).  If I watch 
> something and I feel like I might want to watch it again later or plan 
> to archive it to DVD I leave it there, if I know I'm never going to 
> watch it again I delete it.

Aha! the truth comes out. You do delete things that you are
never going the watch again and the system doesn't have tell
you which ones should be deleted and which ones should be
kept. You can figure that out, the system can't. Why bother?

>   Right now I have something like 135G of 
> recordings of my drive.
> 
>> Thus clearing more space to store more that you've finished
>> with? This is madness! 
> 
> 
> The madness is that you fail to understand the simple fact that the 
> entire point is to clear out things I HAVE watched so that there is more 
> room to store things.

Then do so. I'd suggest looking up "D" in keys.txt.

>> I can't believe that you, or anyone else
>> behaves this way and I sure as heck don't believe a feature
>> needs to be added to "help" someone who does. This just seems
>> contrived to try to justify your suggestion.
> 
> 
> Contrived?

Yes, contrived. See above.

>   The only thing contrived have been your examples of why a 
> watched flag couldn't ever work.

No, I've pretty much laid out exactly why it is pointless.

>  But once it became obvious that you 
> hadn't actually thought about how it *could* work before spouting off 
> you then continue to attempt to find fault wherever you can.  You might 
> try asking for clarification on things you don't understand before 
> making groundless assertions.

Excuse me? Ask for clarification?  You've never even stated how
you plan to derive this percentage. Twice I've even prompted
you with possible approaches yet you won't respond because there
is no way to reliably compute this percentage. No matter how
you derive it that still wouldn't be conclusive that the user
has or has not watched the show to their satisfaction. And even
if that was known, the fact that the user watched something but
didn't delete it isn't conclusive that the user really wants
the system to delete this show. If the user accessed a show
but didn't delete it then it is more likely to be something
that they are, um, paying attention to (since you play word games
with "interest") then something they have never bothered
paying attention to.

And yes, I have thought about how it could work and see that
it can't work. You simply accept that the system can figure
out what you believe you've "watched" but never say how it
would find that. And don't tell me a slider for the percentage
without explaining how you arrive at that percentage.

I do understand. I haven't made any of the groundless assertions
in this dialog and, believe me, you are the only one in this
conversation who believes that you are the sole source of all
knowledge.

>> and you could choose not to use it.
>>
>> You've never said that before.
> 
> 
> No I implied it.

No, you didn't. You started by attacking the idea that there
should be an option for the user to choose if the oldrecorded
entries should be removed if something is auto-expired. You
IMPLIED (wow! CAPS! that must be an important word ;-) that
this must go hand in hand with all this goo to figure out
if the system believes that user has watch a file and make
decisions about when to delete files based on this mis-
information. At no point did you imply that it should be
decoupled as a separate option until your previous message
where your argument fell short and you found it convenient
to dismiss by telling me to not use the option.

> These two things are the sum entirety of what I've been suggesting.  And 
> I fail to see how they're "insane".

Hey, cool technique. Take a hot word out of context so you
can act like it is unjustified. What was insane is that I
mentioned a file, any file, that might be the oldest and due
for auto-expire. You flip flopped playing both sides to act
like you were right and I was wrong no matter what I said
about that file. That is "insane".

> As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over.  It's pretty clear 
> that no matter how I explain things you're going to disagree and/or fail 
> to get it once again.

Oh, you're explaining things and I don't get it, huh? I got
it from the first time you mentioned it. You've never addressed
how you would derive your percentage and never acknowledged that
it is ambiguous. Never acknowledged that there is no clear cut
conclusion that can be drawn from a watched but undeleted file
other then your own assumptions based on the atypical habits
that you claim.

--  bjm