Re: get_recent_list and future dsa-1xxx

2005-12-03 Thread Denis Barbier
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 07:28:13AM -0800, Matt Kraai wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:00:30PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21/11/2005): > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:08:03PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > > > In a few months, the DSAs will have four digit

Re: get_recent_list and future dsa-1xxx

2005-12-02 Thread Matt Kraai
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:00:30PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21/11/2005): > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:08:03PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > > In a few months, the DSAs will have four digits. With the current > > > sorting method (lexically), we will have t

Re: get_recent_list and future dsa-1xxx

2005-12-02 Thread Thomas Huriaux
Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21/11/2005): > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:08:03PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > In a few months, the DSAs will have four digits. With the current > > sorting method (lexically), we will have the following sorting scheme: > > dsa-1000 dsa-1001 dsa-998 dsa-999 > >

Re: get_recent_list and future dsa-1xxx

2005-11-21 Thread Matt Kraai
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:08:03PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > In a few months, the DSAs will have four digits. With the current > sorting method (lexically), we will have the following sorting scheme: > dsa-1000 dsa-1001 dsa-998 dsa-999 > Can somebody confirm that there is no problem if I app

get_recent_list and future dsa-1xxx

2005-11-17 Thread Thomas Huriaux
Hi, In a few months, the DSAs will have four digits. With the current sorting method (lexically), we will have the following sorting scheme: dsa-1000 dsa-1001 dsa-998 dsa-999 Can somebody confirm that there is no problem if I apply the attached patch? (it sorts numerically instead of lexically).