<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif">On 12/30/2013 04:28 PM, Tom Metro wrote:<br>
</font></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:52C1F3A8.3020007@gmail.com" type="cite"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Tommy Butler wrote:
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">...other
hard links should be considered, as already
<br>
stated in the rules, "files already deduped".
<br>
</font>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
SCENARIO:
<br>
</font>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
The three files below have identical content:
<br>
/foo/bar/baz.txt -> ( inode 12345 )
<br>
/foo/car/daz.txt -> ( inode 12345 )
<br>
/foo/far/gaz.txt -> ( inode 67890 )
<br>
</font>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
OUTCOME:
<br>
</font>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
/foo/far/gaz.txt should be reported as a duplicate of
/foo/bar/baz.txt
<br>
because /foo/bar/baz.txt comes before /foo/car/daz.txt in a
sort and
<br>
because /foo/car/daz.txt is a hard link.
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
So then the output might look like:
<br>
/foo/bar/baz.txt /foo/far/gaz.txt
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">YES! :)<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:52C1F3A8.3020007@gmail.com" type="cite"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">
while /foo/car/daz.txt is simply eliminated from consideration
and not output at all?
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Yep.<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:52C1F3A8.3020007@gmail.com" type="cite"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">
The problem with this approach, if you are striving for a useful
tool and not just a programming exercise, is that you don't know
which of the aliases is the name most familiar to the user who
will be reviewing the report.
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">And just when I've about
finalized the output spec and created an output file to put up on
the git repo for diffing ... this. <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span>
:-) </span></span><br>
<br>
You are right, insofar as we are working to develop a useful tool
and not create throw-away code to use once for a competition. I
won't pick nits over the likelihood of a real-world scenario where
hardlinks exist in Joe User's music collection. However for the
sake of simplicity we're not going to require contestants to go
this extra mile at this time. Everyone is free to implement an
output format that reports hard link groupings and to do so for
unredeemable "bonus" points. Should anyone, like me, want a
useful tool when they are done with their code, they should strive
to make it as robust and feature-ful as possible without
sacrificing too much performance. After all, there is a winnings
category for code that provides the most comprehensive feature
set.<br>
<br>
As promised recently, a finalized "expected" output format
(against which the product of each contestant's code will be
diff'd) is forthcoming. It seems like a glaring oversight that
this wasn't part of the original rules specification. I don't
fault myself too much for this given the fact that the output
format is to be so simple and up to this point everyone is
expected to be coding against the problem and not the output.
Watch for that email later on this evening.<br>
<br>
Thanks Tom, and thanks all!<br>
<br>
--Tommy Butler<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>