Hello Andreas Yes, that's simple: Because I not yet updated the UDD table. ;-) > It probably got lost in my pre-vacation time. I was always working on a > local copy with the new table layout applied so I did not noticed this. > > This is fixed now. > > :-)
> > Also in order to test the gatheners locally with udd/udd.py I do for > example > > > > ./udd.py CONF_FILE COMMAND SOURCE(eg blends-metadata) > > > > In order to make the importer capable to import a single Blend how should > > we provide the wanted single Blend as an option? Should we provide it as > an > > extra option along with the SOURCE argument or through the CONF_FILE? > > This is a really good question which I did not thought about. From first > intuition I would think it might make sense to add single paragraphs to > the configfile, like > > blends-all > blend-med > blend-edu > blend-gis > blend-... > > The blends-all option should show the current behaviour to update all > Blends as we are doing now. I think using a paragraph inside the config > file makes sense since even if you want to use the SOURCE parameter you > also need to refer to a config file anyway and IMHO there is no point to > use a different config file. > > Yes when I wrote CONF_FILE I was referring to the existing config-ullmann.yaml conf file. > It might make sense to discuss this on debian-qa list but the > responsiveness to UDD design questions is traditionally low and you > might need to use your Do-O-cracy powers to decide on your own. > > I will start with the single paragraphs (blends-all, blends-med etc) approach in the conf file. On which branch should I work on this? Should I work/commit on the master branch collab-qa/udd.git (especially on this occasion does not seem like a good idea). Also I do not have any permissions on collab-qa/udd.git. Kind regards Emmanouil
