Off-by-one in the tags report?

2008-06-18 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi, I was just having a quick look at the new web pages (which are very cool :-) and spotted what appears to be an off-by-one or similar issue in the tags report. Part of the report includes: derivations (binary) suggests: tetex-bin devscripts (binary) suggests:

Re: Off-by-one in the tags report?

2008-06-18 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 23:32 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Hi, I was just having a quick look at the new web pages (which are very cool :-) and spotted what appears to be an off-by-one or similar issue in the tags report. In case it wasn't obvious and as I forgot to include it in the

Re: Off-by-one in the tags report?

2008-06-18 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 00:57 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: Please include an example URL in future reports, though. I realised my omission as soon as I'd sent the message :-( I did follow up with an example but presumably you were fixing it by that time. :) Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: Off-by-one in the tags report?

2008-06-18 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:32:11PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Hi, I was just having a quick look at the new web pages (which are very cool :-) and spotted what appears to be an off-by-one or similar issue in the tags report. Thanks for catching that, caused by my earlier changes today.

Re: Off-by-one in the tags report?

2008-06-18 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:04:19AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 00:57 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: Please include an example URL in future reports, though. I realised my omission as soon as I'd sent the message :-( I did follow up with an example but presumably you