hi,

On 07/11/2017 10:26, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.11.2017 um 09:05 schrieb jr:
>> On 06/11/2017 21:10, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>> True, I know the version AND date are redundant - I was just thinking about
>>> looking through a directory, and having the date "float" the filename to the
>>> top.   ...
>> not sure about Windows but if you want to have the most recent files
>> shown first, using the 'ls' command you'd need to use an option switch
>> to make it sort in reverse order.
> Nice idea, but there's a catch: All it can sort by is file creation or
> last modification time. ...

and last access, ie 'ls -lt' or 'ls -ltc' vs 'ls -ltu'.

> ... Which may happen to be the same as the time the
> file was originally conceived by the author, but it may just as well be
> something entirely different, depending on the toolchain that eventually
> placed it on your file system.

very true.  the onus (on *NIX like machines) is on the user to be
specific in their requests.  the relevant commands (cp, scp, rsync) all
require an explicit '-a' (archive) or '-p' (preserve) option to keep
dates and permissions straight.  (not a problem though since the BASH
provides an "alias" command, so one can forget about "not forgetting" :-))

not sure about Windows (again), whenever I save a file from an
attachment in a newsgroup, say, the date/time stamp is of the local
creation.  how do you work around this?

> Also, no operating system (well, none commonly used anyway) or file
> management tool can sort by file name first /and/ timestamp second.
> Because you can't have multiple files with the same name but different
> timestamps.

also true, but not the point.  including an ISO date/time in the file
name to "float" it to the top requires reversing the sort order to get
descending dates (that's all I wrote).

regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message