Re: Mail archive indexes are broken, URLs too

Nice, thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> 'k, rsync is back up ... for a short period, part of the archives will
> disappear, but a large portion of it is re-generated, and figured may as
> well let the 'feed server' start downloading now :)
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> ----
> 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

--
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +