I only saw Andreas' edited version of the original enquiry, so I didn't see the orignal config file under discussion - so most of my previous entry is totally pointless.  Sorry about that.

> > elogd 3.1.0 moves all elog entries into year-named subdirectories. this feature makes it incompatible with older elogs and so should be clearly mentioned in the documentation,
> > in the release announcement and in the release and migration notes. K.O.
> 
> That feature is one of the main reasons why the version jumped from 2.x to 3.x. 
> A free tip: changes in major revisions do indicate some kind of incompatibility.
> But yes, the release documentation by bitbucket is not really that useful: 
> it is difficult for me too, to find out what changed with new releases. 
> I have to admit here, that I haven't read any GIT tutorial yet.
> By the way: you are welcome to contribute to the release documentation!
> 
> On your actual problem: to go back to a former version of ELOG you can simply
> - stop elogd 3.X, 
> - move all entries from the sub-directories one level up, and 
> - start the 2.X version of elogd.
> 
> I wouldn't really call this an "incompatibility", would you? 
> At least you can easily go back without much trouble.
> 
> Cheers
> Andreas
Stefan told me that the change was because some users were having thousands of yymmdda.log files
in the logbook directories, and that sorting them into subdirectories by year at least did something to bring some 
order.  Possibly to get around the lazy archivers, I suspect.

When I first tried v3.0, I wanted to go back due to some bug or feature, and had to do exactly what Andreas suggested above.

David.

> > Stefan told me that the change was because some users were having thousands of yymmdda.log files
> > in the logbook directories, and that sorting them into subdirectories by year at least did something to
bring some 
> > order.  Possibly to get around the lazy archivers, I suspect.
> 
> I'm actually the culprit, who did ask for it.
> 
> If you want to know the full story, here it is:
> We have our logbook data of our accelerator operation logbooks on AFS (Andrew File System). 
> And apparently AFS has a bloody stupid, hard coded limit: 
> the total length of all file names in one directory cannot exceed 64k.
> Our operation logbooks go back for more than a decade and do contain many, many, many attachment files.
> One day - very unexpectedly - we did hit that limit. 
> Removing temporary files (generated picture thumbnails) bought us time, and Stefan was nice enough to upgrade
ELOG swiftly for us: a big "Thank You" to Stefan!


Hi Andreas,

I had no intention of causing any offence with my lazy archiving comment - hope I didn't, sorry if I did.  Just
that sometimes I've hit some limit or other, and
entirely due to my lazy archiving - I only get around to do it when I have to, usually when I've hit a limit, or
some other problem (broken links and orphaned
threads being common ones).   

Personally, I would have found it useful to put the attachments into a separate directory - or at least to allow
the possibility.  Elog as it stands sometimes
can, and sometimes cannot cope with that functionality - and even to try means messing around directly with the
yymmdda.log files.  For me it would have saved me
having duplicates of the same large attachment in two or three different logbooks, if I could always reference
the same Master copy of the attachment.  This was
at the time I was severely memory constrained, and in part forced me to change how I had operated elog, so for
me that need isn't as great as it once was.

David.

> > Stefan told me that the change was because some users were having thousands of yymmdda.log files
> > in the logbook directories
> 
> I am one of those users. The elog for the ALPHA experiment at CERN goes back to 2006 or so,
> with large volume of messages and huge number of attachments. The MIDAS forum elog goes back to 2003.
> The TRIUMF DAQ internal elog goes back to 2001.
> 
> I think the new organization is an improvement.
> 
> K.O.
Hi Konstantin,

I've used elog as my main reference/logbook since 2005.  I had looked at it in its version 1 incarnation, but
didn't get on with that so well.  

My biggest problem in the past was running elog on two physically separated linux boxes, and for complex reasons
all the logbooks were on a memory stick (plus the vital backup)!  Hence my previously mentioned memory issues - in
my case the size of the available memory sticks.
David.

> this elog offers me to edit a draft message, then yells at me "only some other user can edit this draft!!!".
> methinks I should only be offered to edit draft messages that I own or I can edit. K.O.
I find it odd that I can see someone elses draft, but never one that I am in the middle of composing (using a
different tab of the browser) in the elog listing.  There's one such draft Konstantin refers to in the logbook
listings now - last one was dark blue, this one a pink background, is there a reason for these different colours?

I am one who received an email every time there is a new entry in this forum.

I have just noticed that since May 20, every email contains the message "An old ELOG entry has been updated: "

whereas before that date, the vast majority say "A new ELOG entry has been submitted: "

Is this something to do with the saving of draft messages?

Talking of which, I see my draft of this message shows up in the forum before I have submitted it.

Hi Stefan,

I see that you've updated the elog running this forum today, 5 versions after you reported fixing the "A new elog entry has been entered" and "An old elog entry has been updated" issue.  But the emails coming out are still all of the "An old elog entry...", rather than "A new..."

David.

Hi Stefan,

The email sent from here had he expected (correct) message "A new ELOG entry..."

Thanks, David.