Re: joblog and files

[Ryan Brothers]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Ole Tange <ole@tange.dk> wrote:
> Maybe --results should create a file 'seq' next to 'stdin' and 'stdout'?

Thanks for your quick reply.

--results creating a file 'seq' could work, or maybe an option where
the directory that --results makes is called the sequence number
rather than the input?

I was using --files rather than --results to have the output of a
given request in a single file, all in the same directory.  That is
why in the other thread I was trying something like "echo {} > {}.out"
to contain all the output into a single file, named by the input,
which seems to work without using --files or --results.

Do you feel that is best to do the output redirection as part of the
command itself?  I was really looking for a mix between --files and
--results, where stdout/stderr are combined into a single file like
--files does, but named by the input source like --results does, but
also put into a single folder with no subdirectories.  Doing this
output redirection seems to have the same net effect.

Also, I noticed that the joblog shows the full command rather than
just the input itself.  Not sure if it would be useful, but perhaps an
option to have a separate column of just the input?  I can always
strip the command column to get back just the input, so there is a
workaround, but having the input standalone would be very useful.

Thanks again for your help.

Ryan