On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >>> Someone with web server access may want to double check the >>> modification dates of the .txt files relative to the generated .html >>> files for other PEPs though. >> >> make will deal with that just fine. If a PEP was modified, svn up will >> update the time stamp on the file. When then the rebuild fails, the >> html file will still have an old time stamp. >> >> So I'm unsure why you thought you needed to modify some of the files. > > Because it's not clear to most of us on this thread what the failure > modes and recovery strategies are? I know it's clear as mud to me how > to debug these kinds of issues.
Yep, it was just a misunderstanding on my part as to possible failure modes for the PEP publication process. I've certainly seen plenty of other systems which need to be resent events if processing of the original events fails. Primarily, I didn't know that any PEP commit just triggered a full Makefile invocation for the PEP directory rather than trying to be selective. (Letting make sort it out is a better idea, I just didn't know it was set up that way). (And, like Terry, Firefox chokes on the postcommit log for me. The file appears to be too big for my system to handle gracefully, so checking it really didn't help me. I did try though.) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
