pull-request: trip manipulations

[Dirk Hohndel]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Ugh. I really want you to fix the "auto-trip" thing. The whole "you
>> need to exit and restart" to actually make it take effect destroys the
>> whole thing for me, and makes these "let's fix up the details" look a
>> bit ludicrous.
>
> Btw, I think the auto-grouping is broken in another way: it just acts wrong.
>
> The thing should be two separate things:
>
>  - a "Create automatic trip groups from current dives" *action* (not
> preference), as an entry in the dive menu.

ok

>  - a *setting* that autogroups new dives into *existing* groups (and
> new dives only - don't do it at load time through report_dives() or
> when doing "Open dives", do it only for the "import dives" or "New
> dive" actions in the dive menu)

Yuck. That is stupid. You will hardly ever add new dives that fit into
existing groups. Maybe during a dive trip they might be added to the
last group, but in general this is a silly distinction.

If you import then the thing should either add to existing groups and
create new groups as needed (which is what it does today if autogroup is
on) or it shouldn't do ANYTHING (for the trip haters - which is what it
does with autogroup off).

> I think the two events are totally disjoint, logically. And I think
> the *setting* should actually default to "on", because it doesn't
> matter one whit whether you autogenerated the trips or whether you
> added them all manually, once you have trips and add new dives, it
> makes sense to assume that the new dives goes into a group you've
> already created.

I don't think so. I think trip haters should have the ability to turn
the auto generation of trips off.

> You might want to make the setting a tri-state: "no", "Auto-add to
> existing trips only" and "Auto-create new trip if new dives aren't
> close enough to an existing trip"

Urgs. Sure, if you think there's anyone who'd like that, I can add it.

> Hmm? I really think that would make the auto-grouping way more
> logical. Now it just does odd things.

I think you just haven't looked at what it actually does. All you are
adding is that weird middle state that to me makes no sense. The other
two states are what is there.

/D