Subject: [Tools-discuss] New IESG agenda code deployed

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:59:10 +0100

Hi,

The old Perl scripts that produced the IESG agenda HTML page
(both "public" version at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html and
an IESG internal version) have now been replaced by new Django code.

The new pages look the same as the old ones (no few functionality at
this time), but it's now ~200 lines of code (Python+Django template)
vs. >1,000 lines of spaghetti Perl earlier, so it should be easier
to maintain and add new features, if needed.

There are redirects in place, so no action is required -- but
if you notice any bugs or strange behavior, let me know.

Also, if you have tools that "screen scrape" this page, you
may want to check them .

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:04:29 +0200 (EET)

> an IESG internal version) have now been replaced by new Django code.

This is less useful than the previous one to 'mere mortals' -- the URL 
to web ballot in the previous version pointed to the public side of 
the datatracker (so you could see ongoing votes, comments, etc.).  Now 
it points to the IESG internal page that requires authentication.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:31:41 +0100

Pekka Savola wrote:

> This is less useful than the previous one to 'mere mortals' -- the
> URL to web ballot in the previous version pointed to the public side
> of the datatracker (so you could see ongoing votes, comments, etc.).
> Now it points to the IESG internal page that requires
> authentication.

That was not intentional, and will be fixed ASAP. Thanks for
reporting the bug!

Henrik: I've just committed changeset 1309 to the sprint/73/pasi
branch, with updated templates/iesg/agenda_doc.html and templates/
iesg/agenda_wg.html (and no other changes).

Could you merge those to the 2.00 branch, please?

(Probably we should wait for couple of days before shipping the
release, if there are other bugs.)

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:35:42 +0100

> Could you merge those to the 2.00 branch, please?

Will do.

> release, if there are other bugs.)

Ok.

Best,

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:40:09 +0100

Hi Pasi,

>> Could you merge those to the 2.00 branch, please?

Now merged to branch/2.00 as r1310.

>> release, if there are other bugs.)

Just FYI:  Cutting a release and shipping is one command and less than
a minute CPU time at my end, and about the same at Glen's end.  So we
don't really have to be too frugal about releases.

Best,

	Henrik

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:57:04 +0100

Hi,

> Also, if you have tools that "screen scrape" this page, you

mine broke :-)

The new agenda doesn't have document version numbers anymore, which  
makes it difficult to figure out which version of a document is  
actually being balloted - can they be added back? (Usually, it's the  
most recent version, but sometimes authors rev the doc during IESG  
Evaluation.)

Lars

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:42:03 +0100

> most recent version, but sometimes authors rev the doc during IESG

Even the old agenda page always showed the most recent version number
(at the time when the cron job was run) -- in the database, the ballot
is for a draft, not specific version of the draft.

But I didn't actually intentionally remove the version number, and in
the sprint/73/pasi branch I was using for testing, it *does* show the
version number. It seems the version number was removed (not only from
this page, but many others too) by your CSS changes in changeset 1255
(file idtracker/models.py, method InternetDrafts.displayname).

Since the version number on this page doesn't really provide much
information, I guess we could leave it as is?

(BTW, one other change in changeset 1255 was linking to HTML versions
on tools.ietf.org instead of ASCII versions on www.ietf.org. I'm OK
either way -- but it seems I need to figure out how to merge the
changes since IETF73 to my testing branch so these don't come as
surprises :-)

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:59:18 +0100

Hi,

> is for a draft, not specific version of the draft.

ah, that was broken as well.

> (file idtracker/models.py, method InternetDrafts.displayname).

Hm. I think I made that change, because in the idtracker "core" pages,  
revision numbers are shown in separate column or field, and they were  
redundant. In retrospect, we probably want to fix this in a different  
way. Something to do during the code sprint.

> information, I guess we could leave it as is?

We could; then I need to tweak my screen-scraper to figure out which  
drafts to download for review based on something else.

> on tools.ietf.org instead of ASCII versions on www.ietf.org.

That's a good change. Oh - if you linked to both the HTML and the  
text, then I had a hook for my screenscraper...

> I'm OK

Lars