Re: incoming/katie monitoring
Bernd Eckenfels <lists@lina.inka.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 09:11:39AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> fixed intervals (about 10 minutes), "status" says when this is going
>> to happen. Once the files have been moved you get the "files uploaded to
>> localhost" mail.
> Yes I asumed that, but the status message is very confusing:
> - is 0:10:20 a duration or a time?
A duration of course. Otherwise the sentence "Next queue check in
approx. 0:02:30" would not make any sense. - It would have to say "at"
instead of "in" if it was a time.
> - if it is a time, in which timezone?
> - if it is a duration, what is the time the status message was written?
> - at which date was the write?
This is not very interesting if queue processing works.
> Therefore I would suggest to write something like:
> Last Queue run: 2004-04-17 12:00+0100, next scheduled for 12:10+0100.
I would like to see _duration_ not time there. - I am not interested
whether it happens at 23:20h NY time or 7:00 Sidney time but whether
it will take 5 or 2 minutes. - The additional checking against the
local clock (and hoping it is syncronized) is useless additional work.
cu andreas
--
NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.
Anthony Towns in 2004-02 on debian-devel
Reply to: