Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> Why can't we just write a script that creates new numbers as needed, > >> such as msg00163.1.php and msg00163.2.php? As far as I can tell, there > >> is nothing magical about the naming schema itself that would cause > >> such URLs to break anything. > > > > Agreed. It is nice to have the emails numbered in arrival order, but > > changes to old URLs are worse. > > 'k, so is the concensus here that I regenerate everything with the 'broken > msg seperator', and then revert to the unbroken one for new stuff? its no > sweat, I just fear this is going to re-crop up sometime in the future if > we ever have to regenerate from the mbox files, as well have some in > 'broken format' and some in the 'unbroken', but renumbering *then* will > still affect everything ... > > Basically, we're just differing the headaches to a later date when we have > no choice :(
Well, ideally we could have the new items renumbered on to the end, starting at 10,000 or something. That way, the numbers aren't changed, but the missing items are now visible. Does the search system assume that numering is always increasing? -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
