discuss: Thread: Erroneous 'Recent Updates' entry?

It was just brought to my attention that there is a recent update entry for
my Ai/ALife Howto. It's date coincides with a cvs commit I made, though I
didn't send in a notification of a new version to the submit address which
I thought was required for a new version to be published.

Has this process been partially automated or something so that it picked up
on my commit? 

Also note that while the 'updated' column list the yet-to-be released
version (2.3) the document linked to is still the current version (2.2).

Not a big deal, I'm just curious what's going on and if I should do things
differently.

Thanks.

-- 

John Eikenberry
####@####.#### - http://zhar.net]
______________________________________________________________
"It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both incisive
and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing
rabbits singing about toilet paper." - Rod Serling

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, John Eikenberry wrote:

>
> It was just brought to my attention that there is a recent update entry for
> my Ai/ALife Howto. It's date coincides with a cvs commit I made, though I
> didn't send in a notification of a new version to the submit address which
> I thought was required for a new version to be published.
>
> Has this process been partially automated or something so that it picked up
> on my commit?

I don't see any updates on the AI HOWTO...  You can check with
http://lists.tldp.org/, announce mailinglist.

Maybe Greg can explain why http://www.tldp.org/sorted_howtos.html says
something else?  We don't have any automatic system yet to update the site
from CVS, but maybe what we see here is a stalled attempt to that effect?

Tille.

- --
Machtelt Garrels                ####@####.####
Review Coordinator    	 	http://www.tldp.org/authors/

My Penguin, my freedom.         http://tille.xalasys.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEUGmHsIIUbMXbBA8RAkrxAJ9msXqSdtw+dPGnF9qGDpRbDjm/mwCgt5jq
r8ceXABRvUK/sQEi6bM8rTI=
=vWGq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> I don't see any updates on the AI HOWTO...  You can check with
> http://lists.tldp.org/, announce mailinglist.
>
> Maybe Greg can explain why http://www.tldp.org/sorted_howtos.html says
> something else?  We don't have any automatic system yet to update the site
> from CVS, but maybe what we see here is a stalled attempt to that effect?


I know what happened. I updated my local copy of the CVS
repository. The script that produces
http://www.tldp.org/sorted_howtos.html examines the
documents from the website to determine what have been
published. It then references the *source* file out
of the CVS repository (easier to parse the SGML/XML
than trying to "guess" at what fields are available in
HTML).  We never actually published your AI HOWTO update,
but that particular version/source file was used in
the script.

Sorry about that. No easy fix I'm afraid. I would need
to "freeze" the SGML/XML source (store it elsewhere) to
ensure it matches what has actually been published on the
site. I'd rather avoid storing multiple copies of the source,
since this situation rarely happens.

----

As for automation...Tille, until we strictly enforce
some higher-constrained requirements (for publishing)
upon every author/document, we will never reach that goal. IMO.

Greg

####@####.#### wrote:

> I know what happened. I updated my local copy of the CVS
> repository. The script that produces
> http://www.tldp.org/sorted_howtos.html examines the
> documents from the website to determine what have been
> published. It then references the *source* file out
> of the CVS repository (easier to parse the SGML/XML
> than trying to "guess" at what fields are available in
> HTML).  We never actually published your AI HOWTO update,
> but that particular version/source file was used in
> the script.

Thanks for the explanation.

> Sorry about that. No easy fix I'm afraid. I would need
> to "freeze" the SGML/XML source (store it elsewhere) to
> ensure it matches what has actually been published on the
> site. I'd rather avoid storing multiple copies of the source,
> since this situation rarely happens.

So if I wanted to help on my end, I could try keeping the version number in
the CVS copy matching the current tldp version no. until I'm ready to
submit?  That way the version listed on the sorted_howtos page would match
the tldp version.

> As for automation...Tille, until we strictly enforce
> some higher-constrained requirements (for publishing)
> upon every author/document, we will never reach that goal. IMO.

What constraints. SGML/XML formats I'm assuming. Which of the supported is
the preferred?

BTW, if I wanted to finally get around to converting my linuxdoc sgml to a
docbook format, would I need to request a change in its CVS location? It
currently recides in a howto/linuxdoc/ which seems like it might cause
processing issues if I suddenly commit a docbook version overtop of it.

Thanks again for your time.

-- 

John Eikenberry
####@####.#### - http://zhar.net]
______________________________________________________________
"It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both incisive
and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing
rabbits singing about toilet paper." - Rod Serling

> ####@####.#### wrote:
> ...
>> Sorry about that. No easy fix I'm afraid. I would need
>> to "freeze" the SGML/XML source (store it elsewhere) to
>> ensure it matches what has actually been published on the
>> site. I'd rather avoid storing multiple copies of the source,
>> since this situation rarely happens.
>
> So if I wanted to help on my end, I could try keeping the
> version number in the CVS copy matching the current tldp
> version no. until I'm ready to submit?  That way the version
> listed on the sorted_howtos page would match the tldp version.

Version number AND date, yes.

>> As for automation...Tille, until we strictly enforce
>> some higher-constrained requirements (for publishing)
>> upon every author/document, we will never reach that goal. IMO.
>
> What constraints. SGML/XML formats I'm assuming.

It's more than that actually. The SGML/XML portion is easy.
It's when we get graphics or other ancillary files that either
need to be included (and referenced a certain way), or they
need to go thru some kind of conversion process to be
utilized/referenced within the document. We have a few docs
that require that.


> BTW, if I wanted to finally get around to converting my linuxdoc sgml to a
> docbook format, would I need to request a change in its CVS location? It
> currently recides in a howto/linuxdoc/ which seems like it might cause
> processing issues if I suddenly commit a docbook version overtop of it.

I can handle that part, you just need to inform us what the
situation is when you send a msg to 'submit'. We've had quite
a few documents that have migrated from linuxdoc to docbook.
It's not a problem.

Greg