Re: New blog - who dis?

On 11/09/2023 16:09, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 8:01 AM Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 2:16 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 2:47 PM Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 1:00 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-Sep-04, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I plan to migrate my blog to a new software platform, which
>>>>>> will also change the URLs which appear in the RSS feed. There
>>>>>> is no convenient way to keep the old URLs in place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most importantly, this will affect Planet PostgreSQL, which
>>>>>> suddenly might see about 150 "new" blog postings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a recommended way how to deal with such a move?
>>>>> Each post in the blog has a "guid" unique identifier, which is usually
>>>>> the same as the URL, but some platforms let you set up something
>>>>> different. If you can "migrate" your posts to the new platform while
>>>>> keeping the GUIDs, that would be best -- they would not be seen as new
>>>>> posts. The actual URLs don't actually matter.
>>>>
>>>> The guid in my case is the full URL of the posting, including the domain.
>>>> I would need to break and fix quite a few things to port this guid over to
>>>> the new system, and I can easily miss something before going live.
>>> You wouldn't need to keep the URL for the new posts, only the GUIDs.
>>> That is, new posts could have GUIDs in a new format, old posts could
>>> just use the old URL in the GUID and the new URL in the, well, URL.
>>
>> That's a theme change which I more or less permanently need to
>> maintain. I'd avoid that, if possible.
>>
>>
>>>> I'd rather not go down this path.
>>> Strictly speaking, per the RSS requirements, you have to. Not donig
>>> so will cause reposts for anybody *else* who is tracking your RSS feed
>>> as well, not just Planet PostgreSQL.
>>
>> Correct, but I'm mostly worried about spamming Planet.
>>
>>
>>> * No posts older than 7 days will get posted to *twitter*. They only
>>> go in the planet RSS feed(s).
>>> * The planet RSS feeds contain 30 items. The homepage as well. At this
>>> point you can see this goes back to Aug 24, so not very far. That
>>> means that any entries older than that will be ingested into the
>>> system, but they won't actually be shown to anybody.
>>> * The feed passed through to www.postgresql.org further restricts this
>>> to just the past 10
>>>
>>> So this would indicate that if you have a period of say 2 weeks of no
>>> postings, *planet* won't notice. Others might.
>>
>> Basically not posting to Planet from this blog for 2-3 weeks, and maybe
>> giving someone a heads-up should do the job?
>
> Yes. Note the date of your last post and keep an eye out on
> planet.postgresql.org and make sure that date has "scrolled off the
> end". Once it has, and it's >7 days, then you are safe from a planet
> perspective.

Well, can report that I made sure that the old feed url sends a 301
(permanently moved) to the new feed url.

However Planet doesn't like this:

Feed returned redirect (http 301)

And marks the request as "Failure".

Looks like the new feed url must be updated (and then the blog goes into
review).

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project