Bug#782677: udd: scripts/update-upstream-status: should consider sepwatch
On 29/06/15 at 16:47 +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 09:47:50PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 28/06/15 at 09:08 +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > It already exists. We have cgi-bin/udd-dehs which reads from mole.watch. So I
> > > don't know why scripts/update-upstream-status would even run uscan.
> >
> > Because the UDD implementation predates a working mole.watch.
>
> Really?
>
> > DEHS died,
> > then there was nothing to replace it, and UDD's implementation was
> > created. Then someone duplicated it in mole.
>
> The implementation in mole was already there when I added watch-requeue and
> sepwatch, and I've heard about the implementation in UDD only very recently.
The UDD implementation was added in
62f88c50d064150ecc22e4397fce06388caccddb, from July 1st, 2012.
At that point, I don't think that there was any other working
implementation (everybody was using DEHS until it died).
> > Given that the UDD implementation works, I have no interest in switching
> > to mole's.
> >
> > I'm not sure who are the current users of the mole implementation,
>
> The mole implementation feeds PTS and DDPO. What does the UDD implementation
> feed?
I don't know. Given that it's easy to get data out of UDD (either
directly using SQL, or through json dumps), I don't keep track of users
of UDD's data.
Hypothetically, how would UDD's get mole's watch data?
How different is mole's data schema from UDD's?
- Lucas
Reply to: