On 11/29/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah... of course they won't be able to edit the wiki that way.
I doubt you'd get the slashdot effect from just the people who're
interested in editing the wiki. You may get a handful of developers
and a few thousand people who only want to rea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Williams wrote:
> On 11/29/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, the trouble with that is that I'm running all of Wget's stuff
>> (plus my own personal mail and whatnot) on a little VPS. I'm rather
>> concerned that the traffic will
On 11/29/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the trouble with that is that I'm running all of Wget's stuff
> (plus my own personal mail and whatnot) on a little VPS. I'm rather
> concerned that the traffic will kill me. I'm already worried about it
> potentially hitting SlashDot or D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Williams wrote:
> On 11/29/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I dunno, man, I think our current wget2 roadmap goals are already pretty
>> wild-and-crazy. ;)
>
> I agree. I think we should create an announcement asking for
> developers
On 11/29/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dunno, man, I think our current wget2 roadmap goals are already pretty
> wild-and-crazy. ;)
I agree. I think we should create an announcement asking for
developers to help and submit it to digg and slashdot. The new
features may get some exci
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony Godshall wrote:
> ...
>> At the release of Wget 1.11, it is my intention to try to attract as
>> much developer interest as possible. At the moment, and despite Wget's
>> pervasive presence, it has virtually no user or developer community.
>> Give
...
> At the release of Wget 1.11, it is my intention to try to attract as
> much developer interest as possible. At the moment, and despite Wget's
> pervasive presence, it has virtually no user or developer community.
> Given the amount of work that needs to be done, this is not good. The
> announ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Williams wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 6:20 PM, David Ginger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So can I ask is a wget2 actualy being developed ?
>
> Go ahead, but I'll answer that question before you do ;-)
>
> The answer is no - not at the moment. But
On Nov 29, 2007 6:20 PM, David Ginger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So can I ask is a wget2 actualy being developed ?
Go ahead, but I'll answer that question before you do ;-)
The answer is no - not at the moment. But we've been discussing it for
several months. It will be a while before any code
> i totally agree with hrvoje here. also note that changing wget
> unique-name-finding algorithm can potentially break lots of wget-based
> scripts out there. i think we should leave these kind of changes for wget2
> - or wget-on-steroids or however you want to call it ;-)
So can I ask is a wget2
On Sunday 04 November 2007 22:54:24 Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Christian Roche has submitted a revised version of a patch to modify
> > the unique-name-finding algorithm to generate names in the pattern
> > "foo-n.html" rather than "foo.html.n". The patch loo
"Tony Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>> > And how is .tar.gz renamed? .tar-1.gz?
>> Ouch.
>
> OK. I'm responding to the chain and not Hrvoje's expression of pain. :-)
>
> What if we changed the semantics of --no-clobber so the user could specify
> the behavior? I'm thin
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> > And how is .tar.gz renamed? .tar-1.gz?
>
> Ouch.
OK. I'm responding to the chain and not Hrvoje's expression of pain. :-)
What if we changed the semantics of --no-clobber so the user could specify
the behavior? I'm thinking it could accept the following strings:
- after
Andreas Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And how is .tar.gz renamed? .tar-1.gz?
Ouch.
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
It just occurred to me that this change breaks backward compatibility.
It will break scripts that try to clean up after Wget or that in any
way depend on the current naming scheme
I'm also a bit hesitant about changing the way files get named.
With a .1 at the absolute end
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Christopher G. Lewis wrote:
> Hmm - changing the rename schema would potentially create a HUGE issue with
> clobbering.
>
> For example, and quite hypothetical...
>
> Given a directory with the following:
> index.html
> index-1.html
> index.1
ovember 04, 2007 4:19 PM
> To: Wget
> Cc: Christian Roche
> Subject: Re: .1, .2 before suffix rather than after
>
> Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Christian Roche has submitted a rev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> It just occurred to me that this change breaks backward compatibility.
>>> It will break scripts that try to clean up after Wget or that in any
>>> way depend on the current naming
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It just occurred to me that this change breaks backward compatibility.
>> It will break scripts that try to clean up after Wget or that in any
>> way depend on the current naming scheme.
>
> It may. I am not going to commit to never ever changing the curr
I don't care particularly how this stuff works, but if you'd like to
do me a favor, please make sure, whatever the final scheme is, that it's
easy to add the #ifdef for VMS to bypass the whole mess, because the
file version numbers on VMS obviate it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Christian Roche has submitted a revised version of a patch to modify
>>> the unique-name-finding algorithm to generate names in the
On 11/4/07, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It just occurred to me that this change breaks backward compatibility.
> It will break scripts that try to clean up after Wget or that in any
> way depend on the current naming scheme.
>
You mean the scripts that fix the same problem this patc
Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Christian Roche has submitted a revised version of a patch to modify
>> the unique-name-finding algorithm to generate names in the pattern
>> "foo-n.html" rather than "foo.html.n". The patch looks good, and
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Christian Roche has submitted a revised version of a patch to modify
>> the unique-name-finding algorithm to generate names in the pattern
>> "foo-n.html" rather than "foo.html.n".
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian Roche has submitted a revised version of a patch to modify
> the unique-name-finding algorithm to generate names in the pattern
> "foo-n.html" rather than "foo.html.n". The patch looks good, and
> will likely go in very soon.
foo.html.n has the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Josh Williams wrote:
> On 11/4/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Christian Roche has submitted a revised version of a patch to modify the
>> unique-name-finding algorithm to generate names in the pattern
>> "foo-n.html" rather than "foo.h
On 11/4/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Roche has submitted a revised version of a patch to modify the
> unique-name-finding algorithm to generate names in the pattern
> "foo-n.html" rather than "foo.html.n". The patch looks good, and will
> likely go in very soon.
That's so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Christian Roche has submitted a revised version of a patch to modify the
unique-name-finding algorithm to generate names in the pattern
"foo-n.html" rather than "foo.html.n". The patch looks good, and will
likely go in very soon.
A couple of minor d
28 matches
Mail list logo
