Hi Steffen, On 2021-03-05 21:19, Steffen Möller wrote: > Am 05.03.21 um 16:13 schrieb Andrius Merkys: >> On 2021-03-04 23:12, Steffen Möller wrote: >>> Somewhere else was the suggestion made to also add a time stamp. This >>> makes perfect sense for the NA/~ and in that case, if that date was >>> specified, we know that unknown is a confirmed unknown. For entries that >>> are found, we should possibly just rely on git blame in salsa. >> Exactly. This was my point. Because if someone stumbles upon a timestamp >> from 3+ years ago, one may check the registry to see if the entry is >> still not there. If the entry is still missing, one would update the >> timestamp to let everyone else know "hey, I have checked it, and it is >> not there". Otherwise one's effort will be lost, and the next one who >> sees a missing entry may repeatedly drain one's time looking. > > Since I was just active on pigx-rnaseq for the thread on guix, I came up > with > > Registry: > - Name: OMICtools > Entry: OMICS_33677 > - Name: conda:bioconda > Entry: NA > Checked: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 20:06:08 +0100 > - Name: guix > Entry: pigx-rnaseq > - Name: bio.tools > Entry: NA > Checked: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 20:07:04 +0100 > > But, donno, this RFC 5322 is barely parseable by eye, even though this > is how we typically put dates in Debian (you get this via 'date -R'). > Much more readable though would be `date --rfc-3339=date`
I would also vote for RFC 3339. RFC 5322 admittedly removes some ambiguity (as confusing YYYY-MM-DD for YYYY-DD-MM), but is not so easy to read/write. RFC 3339 is also widely used in Debian, for example, for appending timestamps to source package versions and package diff files [1]. > Registry: > - Name: OMICtools > Entry: OMICS_33677 > - Name: conda:bioconda > Entry: NA > Checked: 2021-03-05 > - Name: guix > Entry: pigx-rnaseq > - Name: bio.tools > Entry: NA > Checked: 2021-03-05 > > but do our American friends understand that this is not May? And we do > not need the time, as in > > 2021-03-05 20:14:12+01:00 > > I would start without the time and then add it if needed - but as I > said, the art is to eliminate the NAs in the respective > registry/repository and for that, the time of the day does not really > matter, I tend to think. Dates without time have a total of 48 hours of uncertainty due to time zones (if my calculations are correct). Most likely this uncertainty could be ignored for this particular application. > A pending question is if we need a "<rejected>" as in "This entry is not > going to be added to that repository". I personally do think so and > consider this information more important than the NA since a repeated > request likely annoys someone on the other end. Some messages ago [2] I have suggested introducing "Status" field for indicating special states of entries, such as not found, rejected, pending and like. Such field would completely remove the need to place non-ID information in "Entry" field. What do you think about it? [1] http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/source/Sources.diff/ [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2021/03/msg00035.html Best, Andrius