Greetings Neal,
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:00, Neal Richter wrote:
> If the timestamps are the same we don't bother to download it.
>
> > I think you misinterpreted what Lachlan suggested, i.e. the case
> > where Y does NOT change. If Y is the only document with a link
> > to X, and Y does not change,
If we get around to implementing Google's link analysis, as Geoff
suggested, then we may be able to fix the problem properly. It seems
that any fix will have to look at all links *to* a page, and then
mark as "obsolete" those *links* where (a) the link-from page ("Y")
is changed and (b) it no lon
Ciao guys,
Nope, if head_before_get=TRUE we use the HEAD request and the HTTP
server is kind enough to give us the timestamp on the document in the header.
If the timestamps are the same we don't bother to download it.
Yep, you are right. I remember that was one of the reasons why I wrote the
c
Greetings all,
Neal recently suggested releasing a new interrim release in September.
Since yet another deadline has passed, could I ask that those who
hold the "keys" to www.htdig.org set some guidelines for when we
can release the next beta? It was suggested that we, the developers,
do t
Phew... then it might not be my fault :) Sorry, I have no more
ideas, so I'll leave you in Neal's capable hands...
Cheers,
Lachlan
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 01:36, Steve Eidemiller wrote:
> it didn't appear to work
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht://Dig developer DownUnder (http://www.htdig.org)
Hi all,
if the mainstream of servers and/or operating systems
work correct with the latest snapshot and there are
only obscure bugs, then my personal view is that
we should release a new beta, maybe a RC.
There are still people that download, install and
use 3.2b3..
- Original Message
I vote that, once the Windows db.words.db bug is ironed out, we
release 3.2.0b5 / 3.2.0rc1. If anyone has a reason *not* to, could
they please mail it to the group?
I vote +1.
I guess the actual snapshot is the best 3.2 version so far. So ... better a
3.2.0b5 than a buggy 3.2.0b3 still around
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> I think you misinterpreted what Lachlan suggested, i.e. the case where Y
> does NOT change. If Y is the only document with a link to X, and Y does
> not change, it will still have the link to X, so X is still "valid".
> However, if Y didn't change, a
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Lachlan Andrew wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> Neal recently suggested releasing a new interrim release in September.
> Since yet another deadline has passed, could I ask that those who
> hold the "keys" to www.htdig.org set some guidelines for when we
> can release the next beta
