Re: New blog - who dis?

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:44 PM Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> wrote:
>
> 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).

Yeah, this is normal -- planet only autodiscovers redirects to the
https version of the same one. If you change the contents of the URL,
it will get sent back for moderation. (For the *RSS* that is - any
*links* will of course be followed, because that's done by the
browser)

//Magnus