From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cgf.cx (external.cgf.cx [107.170.62.102]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCF6385DC1F for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 15:22:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1DCF6385DC1F X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 cgf.cx B5B664044F X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-CGF-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, KAM_SHORT,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 spammy=Looking, H*r:unknown, bet, H*M:cgf Received: by cgf.cx (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 06 May 2020 11:22:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 11:22:31 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: Jakub Jelinek , Overseers mailing list Cc: GCC Development Subject: Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs Message-ID: <20200506152231.GA10446@cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Jakub Jelinek , Overseers mailing list , GCC Development References: <20200506141139.GJ2375@tucnak> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200506141139.GJ2375@tucnak> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FORGED_SPF_HELO, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_SHORT, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NEUTRAL, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-BeenThere: overseers@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Overseers mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 15:22:44 -0000 On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:11:39PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >Last week after sending status report mails to gcc mailing list, >I've opened the web archive and copied the URLs of those status reports >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/232267.html >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/232268.html >and checked them into gcc-wwwdocs git >c3162d9e711d3e32935c17d1451c63839d702019 revision. >But today people are complaining that those links don't work anymore >and those mails have >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/000504.html >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/000505.html >URLs instead. >Martin Jambor also said he has posted a URL into the archive >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-February/231851.html >which is now instead >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-February/232205.html >Looking around, the last two months of gcc now have very small >numbers, but e.g. on gcc-patches the mails have very high numbers like >545238.html. Can pipermail provide stable URLs at all? We really >need those, we reference those in commit messages, other mails, bugzilla >etc. I'll bet this is due to rebuilding the archive after removing spam. Maybe we need to revisit how that's done. cgf