On Mon 14 Sep 2009 22:46 +0800, Gergely Imreh wrote:
The following patch adds the Orphan field to the aurjson output. For
username we would need to hit the database once more (maybe, have to
think more SQL for that), but the Orphan-ness is quite straightforward
to evaluate. So let's just do
On Thu 17 Sep 2009 10:34 +0800, Gergely Imreh wrote:
2009/9/17 Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com:
On Mon 14 Sep 2009 22:46 +0800, Gergely Imreh wrote:
The following patch adds the Orphan field to the aurjson output. For
username we would need to hit the database once more (maybe, have to
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu 17 Sep 2009 10:34 +0800, Gergely Imreh wrote:
2009/9/17 Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com:
On Mon 14 Sep 2009 22:46 +0800, Gergely Imreh wrote:
The following patch adds the Orphan field to the aurjson output. For
On Wed 16 Sep 2009 22:48 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
OMG, query benchmarking? I've never seen this in the AUR before. :P
Hah, why not. There's kind of a tradition of being picky with the JSON
interface.
I would just do it right and return a maintainer name. Worry about
performance later; there
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Gergely Imreh imr...@gmail.com wrote:
Having said all this, I can see the point of returning the username /
orphan (or username / ?) instead of Orphan logical variable. I
wouldn't have chosen it myself originally because of the extra
database hit, but now it
2009/9/17 Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Gergely Imreh imr...@gmail.com wrote:
Having said all this, I can see the point of returning the username /
orphan (or username / ?) instead of Orphan logical variable. I
wouldn't have chosen it myself originally because
On Thu 17 Sep 2009 12:31 +0800, Gergely Imreh wrote:
Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the objection to a single line of
$row['Orphan'] = ($row['MaintainerUID'] == 0 ? 1 : 0);
which was countered with a suggestion of a full database re-query.
Would THAT really take that much shorter? Have to do some
