On 9/4/2013 10:47 AM, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: > Am Mittwoch 04 September 2013, 09:21:09 schrieb Andrew Deason: > >> Well, is this the RSS feed or the Atom feed? (your subject mentions >> both) If I manually look at the xml for: > > Yes, both. > >> The first entry is indeed "ihandle: don't keep reallyclosing future >> fds", which is the most recent commit on that branch right now. The >> AuthorDate on that one is really old, though (even though it was >> committed yesterday). Maybe something in your RSS reader makes it look >> like that entry is really old, so you don't think it's a new entry? Can >> you find that entry? > > Hmm, if I delete the feed from the reader (akregator in this case), re-add it > and initiate a "get messages", then yes, I get 19 new messages with the one > you mention above beeing the newest one. If I now switch to a different feed > and go back to the OpenAFS one, it is shown as empty again. The reader is > configured to expire messages after 14 days, in case it matters. > > Bye... > > Dirk
This is not something that OpenAFS can do anything about. It is a behavior of Git and the gaps in time between the original Authorship date of a patch and the date it was approved and submitted to the openafs repository. The authorship date is the date the patchset was first committed into the author's local repository. It is not unusual for patches to take days, weeks and sometimes even months to be merged into the repository. This is especially true for the stable/production branches. If the reader makes the assumption that posts will be in time sequential order, it will have problems. Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
