Re: New module proposal: tracker

On Tue, 18.08.09 17:44, Martyn Russell (martyn lanedo com) wrote:

>> And that exists? What providers are there besides the indexer?
> Yes, there are some in progress right now.

So there's nothing usable yet?

>>> We also are using breadth based monitoring so top level folders always
>>> get priority here.
>> That's just trying to make the best of a f*ed up situation. It's not
>> even a work-around, let alone a fix.
> So we should just tell users, sorry, the kernel is shit and we can't be  
> arsed to *try* to make things better for you with what's available?

We are in the lucky position that we are in control over the full
platform here: If the kernel isn't good enough for some userspace use
cases then it can be fixed.

>> Also I doubt that this logic even ameliorates things. I for one tend
>> to edit the leaves of my $HOME tree, not the trunk of it. You seem too
>> assume that this was the other way around for most people. For me at
>> least the top level directories have few (and seldomly edited) files
>> in them, the deepest levels most. I mean, do you edit
>> ~/projects/tracker/src/indexer.c more often that ~/indexer.c? (file
>> names made up, but you get the idea)
> Right but source is less important and as I have said earlier in this  
> thread (and others agree) we should probably be ignoring source 
> checkouts.

This is not about source code.

It's the same for photos. I place my photos in "~/photos/2009/Gran
Canaria/img_4711.jpg" not in "~/img_4711.jpg". And I edit them there

It's the same for music. I place my music in
"~/muzhak/Brazil/Sebastião Tapajós/Sebastião Tapajós - Aquarelas do
Brasil/Afro Samba.mp3", not in "~/Afro Samba.mp3".

>> So you are telling me file system notification does not matter much
>> for Tracker's usefulness? That's news to me indeed. But of course
>> leads to the question: what is it then what it offers that desn't need
>> file system notification? Please explain.
> Well, for a start, we don't index . prefixed directories, so for  
> applications that want to store their bookmarks, contacts, etc they can  
> use tracker for that. The Nepomuk ontology describes all of that and how  
> the data relates. Those updates do not come from file system updates,  
> they come from applications sending us data.

I guess a problem here is that nobody except the Tracker people
themselves even know what an ontology or Nepomuk actually is. Just
throwing around buzzwords that nobody understands doesn't really help
dumb people like me actually get a grip on what tracker actually is,
and help them understand that it isn't what they thought it was.


Lennart Poettering                        Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net           GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]