Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The first two parts of the file name (${min}-${max}) already provide
> visibility into what is going on, and the file system timestamp
> already indicates which file is newer. I picked a random name as
> suffix, as it gets the job done and is simple.
OK, as long as two paths of the same ${min}-${max} part would not
confuse people, I am perfectly fine.
> Or, we could rename to ${min}-${max}-0 and if that fails try
> ${min}-${max}-1, and if that fails ${min}-${max}-2 etc. I think that
> is somewhat nicer than parsing back a counter from the existing
> filenames, but it could have the effect that 1-1-0 could be newer than
> 1-1-2.
I agree that such an approach that can get fooled by an existing gap
would not achieve anything over the ${random} approach.
Thanks.
