[sf-lug] directory tree organization question

[jim]

Here's an opinion someone sent me: 

--------------------------------------------
I think you should put OLD at the top level.

Reason: you may have other files on the system you don't realize that
you want/ need to copy yet.
just convenience I suppose but say configuration files of one sort or
another. They may not copy exactly so...
--------------------------------------------

i like it. 



On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 18:49 -0800, jim wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I can see I wasn't clear (I was 
> excited about getting my new computer). 
>     Because I'm getting a new computer, I am re-thinking 
> my directory structures (I houseclean when I get a new 
> computer). The problem has nothing to do with multiple 
> computers; I'll retire or re-purpose or sell the old one. 
> 
>     On my computer, I want regularly to move things out 
> of the primary directories to the OLD directories in 
> order to keep my working directories lean yet have access 
> to older, seldom used files. Should I bury an OLD 
> subdirectory under each primary directory or should I set 
> up an OLD directory that has a parallel directory tree? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 18:11 -0800, Ken Shaffer wrote:
> > Or just duplicate the existing structure exactly, and sync them up now
> > and then with meld or rsync,.. if you're keeping the old laptop as a
> > backup/traveling machine.  If you're not keeping the old laptop, why
> > not duplicate what you have?
> > Ken
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
> >         
> >            i have a number of directories, each with their
> >         subdirectory trees.
> >            i just bought (and will very soon pick up) a new
> >         laptop from zareason (Terra HD).
> >            i'm rethinking my directory structure and can't
> >         decide (it may not matter, but it may--i bet that
> >         someone figured it out in 1969):
> >         
> >         ----------------------------
> >         what i've got looks like this:
> >         
> >         this/sub-1/
> >         this/sub-2/
> >         this/sub-3/
> >         
> >         that/sub-a/
> >         that/sub-b/
> >         
> >         ----------------------------
> >         i can re-do things like so:
> >         
> >         this/sub-1/OLD
> >         this/sub-2/OLD
> >         this/sub-3/OLD
> >         
> >         that/sub-a/OLD
> >         that/sub-b/OLD
> >         
> >         ----------------------------
> >         or like so:
> >         
> >         this/sub-1/
> >         this/sub-2/
> >         this/sub-3/
> >         
> >         that/sub-a/
> >         that/sub-b/
> >         
> >         OLD/this/sub-1/
> >         OLD/this/sub-2/
> >         OLD/this/sub-3/
> >         
> >         OLD/that/sub-a/
> >         OLD/that/sub-b/
> >         
> >         ----------------------------
> >         
> >         i have no inclination either way. opinions?
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         sf-lug mailing list
> >         sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> >         http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> >         Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>