support for tagging folders/directories

[novoid]

I'd like to use filetags within directories same as within file names.

[novoid]

Please note, that directory support would come with many implications you may not think about.

Here is a selection of things that need to get addressed conceptually:

• inheritance for dir-tags to file-tags in all kinds of derived views (TagTrees, filter)? See Files within tagged directories do inherit the tags for all relevant features #14
• how about "contradicting" dir- and file-tags when it comes to mutual exclusive tag sets? (tag "important" on the dir, tag "unimportant" on the file)
• ...

I'm unsure if I can find proper answers to those questions. For the moment, I'm thinking that filetags won't get dir-support for tags. Please contribute to the discussion if you do have thoughts about that.

[dppdppd]

I was excited about this workflow only to discover that folders aren't supported.

I exclusively manage/tag folders and have no intention to tag files. Maybe there's a solution that avoids file/folder conflicts by assuming it's one or the other?

[nbehrnd]

In my experience with tags within Karl's set of tools of the set of (date2name, filetags, move2archive), tags work best on files without a dependency to other files. Photographs (blog post), pdf which are not research publications but e.g. (scans of) individual invoices fit this well; the time stamps nicely add a second property orthogonal (independent) to the one of the tags to narrow a search in the archive. On the other hand, folders containing source code are better managed by git (and if they contain non-ASCII data such as .png, .jpg, .pdf, git-lfs on top). See e.g. Karl's My Folder Hierachy; the screen photo provides an illustration that not every thing should enter the path ~/archive/events_memories/

The approach nicely can be complemented with a desktop indexer as, for example, recoll then extending to «the other stuff». Conceptually related is the find that notes equally can be organized with tags and time stamps as in Memacs or denote as an extension to Emacs orgmode.

[dppdppd]

That's all fine and understood if the feature isn't generally interesting.

But I don't imagine my situation is exceptionally unique.

I have folders that need non-hierarchical organization where the individual files are not interesting to tag (e.g., all of the pages of a scanned book as tiffs), or the content is third party (e.g., digital assets I purchased where the filenames should not be changed because they get updated periodically and need to be matched/overwritten).

In these cases it doesn't make sense to tag every file.

I would convert the directories to zip files and use filetags as-is if that didn't introduce its own set of problems.

[novoid]

That's all fine and understood if the feature isn't generally interesting.

I completely disagree here.

The feature is certainly interesting. I just don't know a way to implement it without causing problems with people who don't have the background what is working and what is not working when you start using filetags with directory names for the reasons above.

So this is not a discussion about whether or not applying tags to directory names would be feasible (it is!) but rather not breaking working mental/cognitive models that come with filetags already.

But I don't imagine my situation is exceptionally unique.

Absolutely true.

I have folders that need non-hierarchical organization where the individual files are not interesting to tag (e.g., all of the pages of a scanned book as tiffs), or the content is third party (e.g., digital assets I purchased where the filenames should not be changed because they get updated periodically and need to be matched/overwritten).

In these cases it doesn't make sense to tag every file.

That depends on the way you're managing your files and directories. You could choose a different method (like I did) where directories don't need tags at all.

Or you could choose a different tagging tool which doesn't come with issues once you start using tags for directories. Disclaimer: you'll end up with different issues again because other tools don't have the same positive features/effects compared to filetags. ;-)

For me, the beauty of the filetags method also lies in its simplicity and consistency. I don't want to lose that for a certainly interesting feature you do not necessarily need in order to make use our of filetags in the first place.

Therefore I "solve" this trade-off by not sacrifying the current user workflows and conceptual models by implementing directory-based tags.

I would convert the directories to zip files and use filetags as-is if that didn't introduce its own set of problems.

That's a workaround, yes. For projects you have archived and where you don't need access to its content for tools that aren't able to index/parse/access ZIP file content, that's probably even a good idea.

[dppdppd]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I went ahead and added support for taggable directories for my use case.

Sharing here in case anyone else finds it useful: https://github.com/dppdppd/filetags/tree/allow-tagging-dirs

[novoid]

I went ahead and added support for taggable directories for my use case.

Sharing here in case anyone else finds it useful: https://github.com/dppdppd/filetags/tree/allow-tagging-dirs

Thanks for the fork! It's great to have it here as a reference in case there is somebody else who needs this feature and who is able to deal with the side effects I was describing above!

The concept of FOSS is great, isn't it? ;-)

[dppdppd]

It is!

I sidestepped the side effects by treating directories (that have extensions) as endpoints. So there’s no descending into them. They may as well be zips.

Cheers.