On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 05:37:26PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > The latter is specifically something I think would be of interest to kernel > > folks, so I envision that we'd have something like the following: > > > > - a maintainer publishes a configuration file we can pass to lei > > The command-line might be enough, the pathname of the current > state/config file is a bit tricky and tied to its output. > I suppose "lei import-search" can be a command, though...
Excellent, excellent. How well does it deal with the situation when the search parameters change? > > - our backend lei process uses all of lore.kernel.org sources to create and > > continuously update a new public-inbox repository with matching search > > results > > There's already some accomodations for that in LeiSavedSearch > which can present itself as a PublicInbox::Inbox-ish object to > PublicInbox::WWW (untested). > > Searching an within LSS isn't implemented, yet, but I think it's > doable w/o extra Xapian storage. > > However, git object storage isn't duplicated, which is nice for > local use (instaweb-like), but supporting clone/fetch isn't as > natural... I'm thinking we need the ability to make it a real clonable repository -- perhaps without its own xapian index? Actual git repositories aren't large, especially if they are only used for direct git operations. Disk space is cheap, it's the IO that's expensive. :) If these are real clonable repositories, then it would be easy for people to set up replication for just the curated content people want. > Perhaps supporting a v2 inbox as an lei q output destination > is in order: > > lei q --output v2publicinbox:/path/to/v2 --shared SEARCH_TERMS > > --shared would be "git clone --shared", the new v2 inbox can > use ~/.cache/lei/all_locals_ever.git/ as an alternate and not > duplicate space for blobs. Not really worried about deduping blobs, but I'm wondering how to make it work well when search parameters change (see above). E.g.: 1. we create the repo with one set of parameters 2. maintainer then broadens it up to include something else 3. maintainer then decides that it's now *way* too much and narrows it down again We don't really want step 2 to lead to a permanent ballooning of the repository, so perhaps all query changes should force-append a dt: with the open-ended datetime of the change? Or do you already have a way to deal with this situation? > > - we set up a mlmmj list that doesn't receive any direct mail but is only > > fed > > from saved search results; people can subscribe/unsubscribe as they would > > with any other mlmmj list > > > > Any particular reason this wouldn't work? > > Nope :) As long as all the data formats can interoperate > (mostly RFC5322/2822). "lei convert" is nice, too :) Great! I believe this will help untangle the current situation with "where should I send this kernel patch". I want "just send it to [email protected]" to be a valid option again. Participating subsystems can then define what patches they want to see by setting up pseudo-lists and letting participating reviewers/maintainers subscribe to them via their preferred mail delivery mechanism. -K
