On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 23:21 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] > > Anyway, on to the individual scripts: > > > > tagpending > > ---------- > > > > Rewrite in perl. Mostly done, and not as mad as it sounds. :-) > > > > tagpending already contains four perl invocations (two bts select calls > > and one each to dpkg-parsechangelog and URI::Escape; the latter > > shouldn't be necessary after moving to SOAP). Personally, I'd also be > > more comfortable implementing #439688 (including changelog entries as > > comments in the generated e-mail) in perl than in shell. > > I'm indifferent about it being shell or perl, though am happy I can > worry about a bug less as you seem to want to fix it if it's perl :-)
If I'm going to end up fixing it, I'd rather it were perl. I wouldn't have said that a few months ago, but... If nothing else, I'd like to see that feature added so that the little voices at the back of my mind can stop trying to out-do each other with implementation ideas :) > > debchange > > --------- > > > > Mostly implemented (as you may have spotted from my accidental check-in > > of the partially finished change; oops). Waiting for source package > > names to be available via SOAP (see #465332). > > Ok, what's the progress on that bug? It's only been filed for 24 hours. Don said it should be easy to add, so hopefully it won't be long. > > bts > > --- > > > > The perennial trigger for discussions about replacing HTML scraping with > > SOAP. Sadly the fact that bts (rather usefully :) supports offline > > working and local caches of bug content means we're largely stuck with > > parsing the generated HTML. > > Wouldn't it be better to have a cache of the SOAP answers in that case? Possibly. A lot of the offline use wrt attachments, copies of the relevant BTS pages that correctly interlink, etc. will still require parsing the HTML though. The code is also largely written on the assumption that a local copy of the HTML is available. > > wnpp-alert > > ---------- > > > > Parses http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/* in order to derive a list of > > orphaned and RF{A,H}ed bugs. Not sure that it's worth rewriting the code > > given how frequently it's likely to be called. > > I think it will be called more and more and would certainly be better > served with SOAP interaction instead of HTML parsing in the long run. Ok. I'll add it to the to-do list. Adam -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
