Your message dated Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:20:54 +1300
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1064475: lists.debian.org: missing recent posts in
search indices.
has caused the Debian Bug report #1064475,
regarding lists.debian.org: missing recent posts in search indices.
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1064475: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064475
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lists.debian.org
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
Some recent discussion from the Debian mailing lists appears to be missing
from the mailing list search engine[1] indices.
For example:
* Searching for 'Debian'[2] in the debian-devel mailing list, results sorted
by date, currently retrieves a most-recent result dated February of Y2023.
* A wider search for 'Debian'[3] without specifying an individual mailing
list currently retrieves results up to December of Y2023.
Could you inspect the indexing hosts/processes to check whether posts are being
indexed as expected?
Thank you,
James
[1] - https://lists.debian.org/search.html
[2] - https://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/search?P=debian&B=Gdebian-devel&SORT=0
[3] - https://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/search?P=debian&SORT=0
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:42:18AM +1300, Olly Betts wrote:
> There are currently 7 shards in the lists database, but only the first 6
> were listed to be searched.
FWIW I was off by one on both numbers here (the shards are numbered from
0 and I just quoted the highest indexes for each).
> I really need to resolve why this didn't happen automatically or else
> this will go wrong again in the future.
There just wasn't any code to handle this case so I've written some, and
forced a test of it.
Cheers,
Olly
--- End Message ---
