Обсуждение: TODO links broken?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Stephen Scheck
<singularsyntax@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many of the links in the TODO wiki page result in a "page not found" error.
> Is this page up-to-date?
> Can anything be inferred about the status of these items from the broken
> link?

I think what we can infer is that the new archives code is broken.  I
hope someone is planning to fix that.  If there's been some decision
made that we don't have to support the historical URLs for our
archives pages, I think that's a really bad plan; those links are in a
lot more places than just the Todo.

As for your actual question, the TODO list is an accumulation of items
that someone, sometime over the last ten years, thought would be
valuable to work on, and nobody objected too strenuously to the idea.
The fact that it's in the TODO list doesn't mean that anyone is
working on it now, that anyone will ever work on it, or that people
would still think it was a good idea if it were re-proposed today.
It's just kind of a list to jump start people's thinking, and
shouldn't be taken as particularly official.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Stephen Scheck
> <singularsyntax@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Many of the links in the TODO wiki page result in a "page not found" error.
>> Is this page up-to-date?
>> Can anything be inferred about the status of these items from the broken
>> link?
>
> I think what we can infer is that the new archives code is broken.  I
> hope someone is planning to fix that.  If there's been some decision

Yes. We can infer that. It makes it a whole lot easier to fix
something with better bug repors than that, of course, as I'm sure you
(Robert in this case, not Stephen) are generally aware of.

I've reverted a patch that was applied a few days ago that dealt with
how URLs are parsed, and I think that's the one that's responsible.
But it would be good to have an actual example of what didn't work,
because the links i tried all worked...

> made that we don't have to support the historical URLs for our
> archives pages, I think that's a really bad plan; those links are in a
> lot more places than just the Todo.

No, the plan has always been to support those. There are no plans to
remove that.

-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Yes. We can infer that. It makes it a whole lot easier to fix
> something with better bug repors than that, of course, as I'm sure you
> (Robert in this case, not Stephen) are generally aware of.
>
> I've reverted a patch that was applied a few days ago that dealt with
> how URLs are parsed, and I think that's the one that's responsible.
> But it would be good to have an actual example of what didn't work,
> because the links i tried all worked...

Hmm.  Sorry for the lack of detail.  I assumed the problem was obvious
and widespread because I clicked on the first link I saw in the Todo
and it didn't work.  But after clicking a bunch more links from the
Todo, I only found three that fail.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01340.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01831.php
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4B577E9F.8000505%40dunslane.net/

That last one works if I change %40 to @, so that one might be a wiki
problem rather than an archives problem.  In fact, for all I know the
other two might have been broken all along too; I'm just assuming they
used to work.

Sorry for going overboard,

...Robert

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Yes. We can infer that. It makes it a whole lot easier to fix
>> something with better bug repors than that, of course, as I'm sure you
>> (Robert in this case, not Stephen) are generally aware of.
>>
>> I've reverted a patch that was applied a few days ago that dealt with
>> how URLs are parsed, and I think that's the one that's responsible.
>> But it would be good to have an actual example of what didn't work,
>> because the links i tried all worked...
>
> Hmm.  Sorry for the lack of detail.  I assumed the problem was obvious
> and widespread because I clicked on the first link I saw in the Todo
> and it didn't work.  But after clicking a bunch more links from the
> Todo, I only found three that fail.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01340.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01831.php


Works now, so that seems to have been fixed by the reverting of the
patch. It might be a while before they all recover due to caching
issues, but both of these work now for me, which seems to indcate the
fix is the right one.


> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4B577E9F.8000505%40dunslane.net/

It works with %40 for me now, so it might have been related - can you
check if it is still an issue for you? It might be different in
different browsers.

--Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Hmm.  Sorry for the lack of detail.  I assumed the problem was obvious
>> and widespread because I clicked on the first link I saw in the Todo
>> and it didn't work.  But after clicking a bunch more links from the
>> Todo, I only found three that fail.
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01340.php
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01831.php
>
> Works now, so that seems to have been fixed by the reverting of the
> patch. It might be a while before they all recover due to caching
> issues, but both of these work now for me, which seems to indcate the
> fix is the right one.
>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4B577E9F.8000505%40dunslane.net/
>
> It works with %40 for me now, so it might have been related - can you
> check if it is still an issue for you? It might be different in
> different browsers.

Yeah, it seems OK now.  Thanks for the quick response.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company