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

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: