Re: Mail archive indexes are broken, URLs too

'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