Re: Gathering package upstream meta-data in the UDD. (was: Re: more formally indicating the registration URL)

2010-01-18 Thread Andreas Tille
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 08:08:19AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > This is more or less what I meant by ???long??? format (in the sense of R???s > reshape() function). In order to fit this information in a SQL table, I was > more thinking about: > > package title text > package author

Re: Gathering package upstream meta-data in the UDD. (was: Re: more formally indicating the registration URL)

2010-01-18 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:05:17PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > > If it fits wells the blends script that creates the web sentinels, > > perhaps the ???long??? format (package name / keyword / value) will help us > > to keep > > the system most simple. Also, that is the closest to an RDF tu

Re: Gathering package upstream meta-data in the UDD. (was: Re: more formally indicating the registration URL)

2010-01-18 Thread Andreas Tille
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:59:31AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Since most of the information apart from the bibliographic references is > currently sparse, I propose to only import the bibliographic material for the > moment. Makes sense. > If it fits wells the blends script that creates the w

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

2010-01-18 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:54:53PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 18/01/10 at 09:40 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:33:24PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 17/01/10 at 10:26 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > The correct data is now gathered, but it doesn't solve *y

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

2010-01-18 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 18/01/10 at 09:40 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:33:24PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 17/01/10 at 10:26 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > The correct data is now gathered, but it doesn't solve *your* issue, > > > which is due to something else, actually: the ddpo dat

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

2010-01-18 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:33:24PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 17/01/10 at 10:26 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > The correct data is now gathered, but it doesn't solve *your* issue, > > which is due to something else, actually: the ddpo data doesn't contain > > anything for packages with no bug

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

2010-01-18 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 17/01/10 at 10:26 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > The correct data is now gathered, but it doesn't solve *your* issue, > which is due to something else, actually: the ddpo data doesn't contain > anything for packages with no bugs. So while the RRD files are updated > when there are bugs, it stops be