Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 14:18:14 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Mail archive indexes are broken, URLs too
In-Reply-To: <200608011911.k71JBQl12986@momjian.us>
Message-ID: <20060809141747.C7267@ganymede.hub.org>
References: <200608011911.k71JBQl12986@momjian.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed


Just shutdown rsync while I rebuild the archives for the 'old/new' scheme, 
where old is pre-July 2006 ...

will post once its been all rebuilt ...

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>
> Is anyone working on this?  Marc?  If not, who can make these
> modifications to the archive numbering?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> When Marc fixed the message-boundary pattern and regenerated the
>>> archives, many of the existing messages changed URLs because they
>>> got assigned slightly different numbers.  I notice that the archive
>>> search engine hasn't yet tracked this change --- if you do a search
>>> and click on a link to a message, you'll arrive at a message close
>>> to the one you want but probably not quite it.
>>>
>>> Regenerating the archive indexes is presumably not hard, but there's
>>> a bigger problem: for awhile now many of us have been in the habit
>>> of citing old discussions by archive URLs.  All those links are now
>>> broken too, and I can't think of any easy way to fix them.  And then
>>> there's Google etc.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it'd be better to revert the regeneration of the archives,
>>> and only apply the new message-boundary pattern to future messages.
>>
>> Agreed.  There have been no changes since we discussed this.
>>
>> The best proposal was to renumber the newly-found items to the end of
>> the numeric range for the pre-July 2006 archives, and to properly number
>> July 2006 and later archives.  And this date range has to be enbedded in
>> the archive script so if it is ever run again, this behavior continues
>> to happen.
>>
>> The longer we take to fix this, the more likely that people are creating
>> URL's that refer to the existing pre-July 2006 numbering which should
>> change.  It needs to be fixed quickly.
>>
>> And we can't just leave it alone because old archive emails have URLs
>> that point to now-incorrect numbers, and there is no good way to fix
>> that everywhere are emails are archived.
>>
>> --
>>   Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
>>   EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>
>>   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>>
>>                http://archives.postgresql.org
>
> --
>  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
>  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org                              MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664