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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150630063048.ga29...@xanadu.blop.info
