Re: [Bug-ddrescue] Suggestions to rename "logfile"

[Antonio Diaz Diaz]

Thanks to those who answered, and also to those who thought about it but 
perhaps couldn't find a good answer. :-)

I think the best suggestion is 'blockfile', proposed by Martin 
Bittermann. All the others either don't make sense for some use of the 
file, or are too long.

After all, the logfile is mostly described in the manual as a "list of 
data blocks".

I'll comment the other suggestions below:


Martin Bittermann wrote:
> I'd rather keep the current name ;-)
> Of course there is the pitfall for new users who think "I don't need a 
> logfile, won't read it anyway..." but the documentation makes it pretty 
> clear it is a bad idea to run ddrescue without logfile.

Another reason against keeping the current name is that ddrescue can 
produce two kinds of "real" logfiles (see --log-rates and --log-reads). 
These files really record events, while the current logfile just records 
the effects of those events (if any) and records nothing if used as a 
'domain logfile'.


Robert Trevellyan wrote:
> mapfile
> rescuemap

The problem with these is that 'map' is only mentioned in the ddrescue 
documentation in relation with the '--test-mode', while 'block' is 
mentioned in about all places related to the logfile.


Adrien Cordonnier wrote:
> If you change the logfile name, I suggest additional modifications at
> the same time:

Well, if I change the logfile name then there will be no logfile, and 
users won't have the excuse that they don't need a logfile. ;-)


Felix Ehlermann wrote:
> If the user is writing to an image file ddrescue should just automatically
> create "<outfile>.resumestate" next to the outfile unless --no-resume-state
> or a different location for the resume-state is specified.

In addition to creating unrequested files, which I think ddrescue should 
never do, this could create more problems than it solves. For example, 
how could ddrescue differentiate an existing "<outfile>.resumestate" 
created in a previous run from one stale file that the user forgot to 
delete?


> This way unexperienced users will have a logfile if they don't read through
> the manual.

Lets see how many inexperienced users dare not to use a 'blockfile'. ;-)


Ketil Froyn wrote:
> In any case I think it's unnecessary to call a file something with "file".

I find it self-documenting. For example, which of the following two 
commands find you easier to understand?

  ddrescue [options] in out [sectormap]
  ddrescue [options] infile outfile [blockfile]


That's all. Further comments are welcome.


Best regards,
Antonio.