| 1 |
On 1/27/08, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 01:49 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > sequential numbers), but it will be a day or two - restoring the old |
| 4 |
> > ones is not possible at all. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Umm... OK. What's the new format? Do we just have to go an manually |
| 7 |
> change every single link we've ever made to anything on archives? How |
| 8 |
> are we going to find the articles if the old links don't work? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So slight postmortem: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The url per e-mail depended on the order of processing for messages: |
| 14 |
the first message got 1, the second got 2 and so forth. The upgrade |
| 15 |
ruined that database. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
To prevent this in the future, Robin created a scheme that is not |
| 18 |
dependent on the order of processing (which is harder that it sounds |
| 19 |
as we discussed on -infra last night). We don't have a mapping from |
| 20 |
old e-mails to new ones. If you know what the title was you can |
| 21 |
probably fish the message out of the archives; otherwise you are |
| 22 |
probably SOL. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The bonus out of all this is that the new storage format could get |
| 25 |
destroyed and we wouldn't have this problem (archives would just be |
| 26 |
down for two days while infra regenerates the indexes. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-Alec |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives