Please provide created_since_date in getPublishedSources

[James Westby]

Hi,

published_since_date is great for watching for changes in Ubuntu, but
it doesn't work for Debian as the records aren't published there.

Therefore a pending_since_date would be great for that, so I can at least
get notifications of changes, even if I have to work harder to obtain the
current state.

Thanks,

James

[Celso Providelo (cprov)]

Hi James,

We know that the publishing status change in a single direction (pending, published, superseded/deleted then removed) and there is no way a pending publication will not become published in specific period of time (1 hour for PRIMARY, 20 minutes for PPAs).

So, my proposal is to replace the current 'published_since_date' by your suggested 'pending_since_date' and for callsites specifically interested in the instant a publication was available in pool/ further inspection on 'status' and 'date_published' still possible.

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:16 +0000, Celso Providelo wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> We know that the publishing status change in a single direction
> (pending, published, superseded/deleted then removed) and there is no
> way a pending publication will not become published in specific period
> of time (1 hour for PRIMARY, 20 minutes for PPAs).
>
> So, my proposal is to replace the current 'published_since_date' by your
> suggested 'pending_since_date' and for callsites specifically interested
> in the instant a publication was available in pool/ further inspection
> on 'status' and 'date_published' still possible.

So my code that currently used published_since_date, but doesn't really
care about the dates, just wants new publications since the last run
would switch to pending_since_date as well and get the same effect?

Thanks,

James

[Celso Providelo (cprov)]

Exactly, it would have the same effect, except by the time offset until the files are available in the pool/ (but I think you don't need that, do you ? you use librarian files, right ?).

Using 'pending_since_date' also means you can have the same lookup for ubuntu and debian (bonus!).

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 10:09 +0000, Celso Providelo wrote:
> Exactly, it would have the same effect, except by the time offset until
> the files are available in the pool/ (but I think you don't need that,
> do you ? you use librarian files, right ?).

Yeah, that would be fine.

It would also mean that the packages are available in bzr long before
being on the mirrors :-)

> Using 'pending_since_date' also means you can have the same lookup for
> ubuntu and debian (bonus!).

That will be a bonus.

Thanks,

James

[Celso Providelo (cprov)]

Okay, let's do this.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

Wait a minute. What about including the pending state in the existing
published_since_date query? I'm not sure I like pending_since_date, it
doesn't make any sense outside of our unpublished Debian imports.

[Celso Providelo (cprov)]

It doesn't make much sense to have 'both' filters, basically because there is no way that a just created publishing record will not be 'published' in a given interval (varies according the archive purpose, but that's constant).

For the readability, the argument is named 'created_since_date'.

'date_created' makes more sense than 'date_published' in absolutely all cases, because it doesn't include the intrinsic publication time offset, so sources uploads and copies will be identified immediately, instead of 'after one hour they were done'.

If a callsite wants to identify which records in a batch are already available in pool/ it can check their 'date_published' attribute, which is not more expensive than iterating over the elements, because the attribute is already serialized.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

> For the readability, the argument is named 'created_since_date'.

That sounds much better.

[Celso Providelo (cprov)]

r8350 (stable)