Re: Mail archive indexes are broken, URLs too

> Marc wrote:
>
>
> Nope, for one simple reason ... if, for some reason, at some point in
> the future, we have to regenerate everything anyway (ie. the last time
> we did a major template change for the archives), all the #'ng is going
> to end up reverting back to what it is now ... so we'd only be 'delaying
> the inevitable' ...
>
> On July 17th.
>
> Joshua D. Drake

If you look below you will see my idea was to hack the script to always
use the method of putting newly found items numerically at the end for
pre-July 2006 dumps. That addresses Marc's concern.

Marc hasn't responded so I assume he is busy and will hack on this when
he gets back.

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

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(at)momjian(dot)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(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

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