From: Jose Kahan (jose.kahan@w3.org)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 15:48:04 CDT
Kent,
Sorry if my answer wasn't clear enough. Let me rephrase it (see here
below).
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 12:49:51PM -0500, kent landfield wrote:
>
> Ok... Not sure I understand the last part about WAI changes, but you do
> so that's the important thing. I defer that to you.
>
> So let me understand what you are saying... Because of WAI changes the
> base archive numbers need to start with the number 0001. Correct ? If
> that's the case this is not just a one time bug. That would drastically
> change things...
>
> Again, if we go with the number 0001, we invalidate all existing archives
> that are 0000 based. (This is most of the hypermail archives in existence.)
> If we go with 0000 then we make the WAI changes harder to use. Is this
> an accurate reflection of the problem ?
The skip bug is not related to the WAI changes. It was there before.
What I wanted to say is that if for whatever reason you want to
rebuild your archive, for example, so that all your previous archives
have the WAI changes, not just the new messages, the 0001 and 0000 bug
will represent a problem.
I prefer to have all the messages start with 0000, as it's the way
hypermail works since long time ago. I don't want to change that.
The option I proposed (start with 0001) is just so that if you rebuild
your archive for a given period where you know that the archive
started with 0001, you can say it to be rebuilded starting with 0001
so that the URLs won't break when rebuilding a given period. If you
don't use this option, the archive will be rebuilt with 0000 as usual.
If we don't want this option, it's fine with me. I can always manage
to do a workaround in our lists for the affected periods. I was thinking
about other user who may have this problem too.
I hope I was a bit clearer :)
-jose