[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: udd/blends_metadata_gathener.py hints

Hello Andreas

Yes, that's simple:  Because I not yet updated the UDD table. ;-)
It probably got lost in my pre-vacation time.  I was always working on a
local copy with the new table layout applied so I did not noticed this.

This is fixed now.

> Also in order to test the gatheners locally with udd/udd.py I do for example
> ./udd.py CONF_FILE COMMAND SOURCE(eg blends-metadata)
> In order to make the importer capable to import a single Blend how should
> we provide the wanted single Blend as an option? Should we provide it as an
> extra option along with the SOURCE argument or through the CONF_FILE?

This is a really good question which I did not thought about.  From first
intuition I would think it might make sense to add single paragraphs to
the configfile, like


The blends-all option should show the current behaviour to update all
Blends as we are doing now.  I think using a paragraph inside the config
file makes sense since even if you want to use the SOURCE parameter you
also need to refer to a config file anyway and IMHO there is no point to
use a different config file.
Yes when I wrote CONF_FILE I was referring to the existing config-ullmann.yaml conf file.
It might make sense to discuss this on debian-qa list but the
responsiveness to UDD design questions is traditionally low and you
might need to use your Do-O-cracy powers to decide on your own.

I will start with the single paragraphs (blends-all, blends-med etc) approach in the conf file.

On which branch should I work on this? Should I work/commit
on the master branch  collab-qa/udd.git (especially on this occasion does not seem like a good idea).
Also I do not have any permissions on collab-qa/udd.git.

Kind regards


Reply to: