posts missing in nntp

this post to the web:
http://forums.opensuse.org/programming-scripting/434177-run-command-boot.html#post2129167

does not appear in the nntp side…why?

i’ve seen this before and thought maybe it was my T-bird or gremlin…

can any other nntp user check and see if they can duplicate,
please…(if so the problem probably is inside the hhtp->nntp magic,
and therefor fixable–please!)


palladium

I see it in kNode, in the help.programming-scripting group

I’ve found this on the NNTP side… Is this the same post before it was edited?

This might be another manifestation of the ‘edits not transferring’ bug that we saw before…

Well, I made the file, and saved it as set_video_fan.sh

I added to my startup programs by computer>control center>startup
applications

But it didnt work :’(

I don’t know how to make it executable, I think this is the problem.


breakitdown

Confuseling wrote:
> I’ve found this on the NNTP side… Is this the same post before it was
> edited?
>
> This might be another manifestation of the ‘edits not transferring’ bug
> that we saw before…
>
>> Well, I made the file, and saved it as set_video_fan.sh
>>
>> I added to my startup programs by computer>control center>startup
>> applications
>>
>> But it didnt work :’(
>>
>> I don’t know how to make it executable, I think this is the problem.
>>
>>
>> –
>> breakitdown
>>

that is exactly what i see…i do NOT see:

edit: SOLVED

Thanks very much palladium. it is now working!

i did, chmod 755 to my script, to make it executable (i think)

added to my startup programs, presto!

Cheers!!

which must mean that the magic which is supposed to make sure that web
and NNTP posts remain the same (poster’s can’t edit AFTER the time
limit to send the posts to nntp)

broken! (apparently)


palladium

What is interesting is the post is reflected in a reply by hcw…
Just doesn’t show on it’s own.

breakitdown;2129167 Wrote:
> edit: SOLVED
>
> Thanks very much palladium. it is now working!
>
> i did, chmod 755 to my script, to make it executable (i think)
>
> added to my startup programs, presto!
>
> Cheers!!You did chmod on the file that contains the script. But you should
be
SURE about what it does.

And yes, it makes it executable for the owner (your userid), the group
it belongs to and for all others (in fact thus for everybody). It also
makes it readable to all three categories and it also makes itt writable
to the owner alone.

On 02/03/2010 15:18, palladium wrote:

> can any other nntp user check and see if they can duplicate,
> please…(if so the problem probably is inside the hhtp->nntp magic,
> and therefor fixable–please!)

Posts made by NNTP will appear for HHTP and vice versa but edits and
moves via HTTP may not get picked up for NNTP (there is small window of
opportunity before message is sync’ed - that window is variable
depending on when sync happens).

HTH.

Simon
Novell Knowledge Partner (NKP)


Do you work with Novell technologies at a university, college or school?
If so, your campus could benefit from joining the Novell Technology
Transfer Partners (TTP) group. See www.novell.com/ttp for more details.

Simon Flood wrote:
> On 02/03/2010 15:18, palladium wrote:
>
>> can any other nntp user check and see if they can duplicate,
>> please…(if so the problem probably is inside the hhtp->nntp magic,
>> and therefor fixable–please!)
>
> Posts made by NNTP will appear for HHTP and vice versa but edits and
> moves via HTTP may not get picked up for NNTP (there is small window of
> opportunity before message is sync’ed - that window is variable
> depending on when sync happens).
>
> HTH.

thanks…i was under the impression that hhtp users had a limited
window in which to edit (10 minutes?) to preclude exactly what happened…

are you saying ten minutes is too long, or maybe some other means
should be used to keep the two db’s in sync?? (for the edit problem
only–for the moved on the hhtp side problem, i understand there is no
fix… anyway, with the current set of moderators it VERY seldom happens…)


palladium

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:28:09 +0000, palladium wrote:

> thanks…i was under the impression that hhtp users had a limited window
> in which to edit (10 minutes?) to preclude exactly what happened…

Should prevent it from happening, but something could slip through,
apparently.

> are you saying ten minutes is too long, or maybe some other means should
> be used to keep the two db’s in sync?? (for the edit problem only–for
> the moved on the hhtp side problem, i understand there is no fix…
> anyway, with the current set of moderators it VERY seldom happens…)

Well, moved or edited by a member of staff. As for another means keeping
things in sync, that’s custom development work that would need to be done.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Moderator

On 03/03/2010 17:44, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:28:09 +0000, palladium wrote:
>
>> thanks…i was under the impression that hhtp users had a limited window
>> in which to edit (10 minutes?) to preclude exactly what happened…
>
> Should prevent it from happening, but something could slip through,
> apparently.

I don’t think the sync process waits 10 minutes after each post before
sync’ing it but is something that runs every 10 minutes so if you post
just after a sync you have a longer window to edit than if you post just
before it syncs.

Simon
Novell Knowledge Partner (NKP)


Do you work with Novell technologies at a university, college or school?
If so, your campus could benefit from joining the Novell Technology
Transfer Partners (TTP) group. See www.novell.com/ttp for more details.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:51:04 +0000, Simon Flood wrote:

> I don’t think the sync process waits 10 minutes after each post before
> sync’ing it but is something that runs every 10 minutes so if you post
> just after a sync you have a longer window to edit than if you post just
> before it syncs.

Correct, it runs on a 10-minute cycle.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Correct, it runs on a 10-minute cycle.

if i understand what he said, the sync runs on a set 10 minute cycle,
but edit free floats and an edit could begin 8 minutes into a sync
cycle, the sync run on time, and then some minutes later the edit can
be accepted…or might be accepted in any case that logic won’t
preclude what has happened, except by luck…

did i misunderstand??

if i understand, there must also be a block to disallow edits which
persisted over the sync initiation…is that in place?


palladium

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:57:03 +0000, palladium wrote:

> if i understand what he said, the sync runs on a set 10 minute cycle,
> but edit free floats and an edit could begin 8 minutes into a sync
> cycle, the sync run on time, and then some minutes later the edit can be
> accepted…or might be accepted in any case that logic won’t preclude
> what has happened, except by luck…
>
> did i misunderstand??

My understanding is that it runs on a 10 minute cycle, and edits are
allowed before the cycle runs.

> if i understand, there must also be a block to disallow edits which
> persisted over the sync initiation…is that in place?

Don’t know. But again, it’s known that it’s not a 100% perfect solution,
but to make it better would require custom coding be done, and that
custom code would have to be maintained.

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator

so the only way to keep the two messages based close would require
custom code maintenance or disallowing all edits…(hmmmm, that
would be VERY popular among those who already think the “Post” button
should really be “Preview” with an unlimited time to finalize and
submit…)

which begs the question: is Preview an unused, non-custom code,
feature available ??


palladium

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:12:57 +0000, palladium wrote:

> so the only way to keep the two messages based close would require
> custom code maintenance or disallowing all edits…

Or to recognise the limitations and live with them, which is what was
decided.

> which begs the question: is Preview an unused, non-custom code, feature
> available ??

AFAIK, it’s a standard part of vBulletin.

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator

i see a “Preview Post” and “Submit Reply” button, side by side, and now wonder two things:

  1. why such an outcry over no, or too short edit time? there has never been a 10 minute limit to preview, proofread and edit prior to submitting a message (no matter the protocol: HTTP, NNTP, FTP, SMTP, terrestrial/air mail, telegram or etc)…

  2. no need to “recognize the limitations [accepting differing messages] and live with them” when there is an easy fix by not allowing edits to submitted inputs…

simple! fixing the mismatched message problem and extending an unlimited edit function to all equally…

yes, i know some web posters will complain that they can’t “Submit Reply” and then edit here, but they can at forum x, y or z…so, point’em to “Preview” for editing and proofreading (and, if actually required: explain why two completely different words are used, ‘preview’ vs ‘submit’)…

end of story, no edits possible after sending (just like email, text messages/SMS, chat, smoke signals and jungle drums)!

that should put an end to two discussions:

  1. too short, or no, edit time

  2. dissimilar messages on record

and, a third (“Why didn’t someone tell me?”) can be ended before it begins by adding a sentence or two to the FAQ on the meaning of the words “submit” and “preview”… :wink:

its like falling off a log, drop dead easy…just remove “1” in this config line: edit_time=10 and it is [SOLVED]

life is great,
dd

PS1: to make sure, i let this message sit in an edit window for over an hour, making small edits every once in a while, pressing ‘preview’ each time, and NO problem! unlimited edits ARE allowed!!

PS2: plus, i just found an easy way to answer the “How do i mark my problem solved (without a “Solved” button)?” questions also!!

PS3: i don’t actually know there is a vBulletin.conf entry: edit_time=10, but i suspect there is something very similar…

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:36:01 +0000, DenverD wrote:

> 1. why such an outcry over no, or too short edit time? there has never
> been a 10 minute limit to preview, proofread and edit prior to
> submitting a message (no matter the protocol: HTTP, NNTP, FTP, SMTP,
> terrestrial/air mail, telegram or etc)…

Because some of the communities that were merged (if not all of them) had
editing capabilities. Call it crazy, but people get upset when they lose
functionality.

> 2. no need to “recognize the limitations [accepting differing messages]
> and live with them” when there is an easy fix by not allowing edits to
> submitted inputs…

Except for the outcry then at having edits disabled by those who have
come to expect it. What we have now is the compromise that was worked
out, and it is in fact good enough to meet everyone’s needs enough of the
time.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Because some of the communities that were merged (if not all of
> them) had editing capabilities.

none of the communities i was a member of had edit-after-send
capability…as you know, such is just not a part of usenet newsgroups
or mail lists…

> What we have now is the compromise that was worked out, and it is
> in fact good enough to meet everyone’s needs enough of the time.

since it allows dissimilar message databases, it is (imo) a compromise
needing a revisit…

for one reason, the logic that–some of the previous communities
allowed send then edit–does not hold water when one realizes that
most every “Why can’t i edit?!” seen here in the last year and a half
has been by someone new coming in from a brown/blue/red venue, and not
one of our own, previous community members…

anyway, i’m highly confident that all members of the former
communities are sufficiently intelligent to quickly settle in with
edit-then-send…


palladium

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:26:38 +0000, palladium wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Because some of the communities that were merged (if not all of them)
>> had editing capabilities.
>
> none of the communities i was a member of had edit-after-send
> capability…as you know, such is just not a part of usenet newsgroups
> or mail lists…

Well, there were communities that did have that that were part of the
merge, so that functionality was included.

>> What we have now is the compromise that was worked out, and it is in
>> fact good enough to meet everyone’s needs enough of the time.
>
> since it allows dissimilar message databases, it is (imo) a compromise
> needing a revisit…
>
> for one reason, the logic that–some of the previous communities allowed
> send then edit–does not hold water when one realizes that most every
> “Why can’t i edit?!” seen here in the last year and a half has been by
> someone new coming in from a brown/blue/red venue, and not one of our
> own, previous community members…

Quite possibly that’s because those who do use the edit functionality
know their limitation and ensure that if they have anything additional to
add, they know what the time limit is. If we move that bar again, we
risk creating problems in the community that are easily avoided by
leaving things as they are.

> anyway, i’m highly confident that all members of the former communities
> are sufficiently intelligent to quickly settle in with edit-then-send…

I don’t see a need to revisit it - what we have works well enough now.

By the same logic you’re using, those same members could come back and
say “you know, a minority of the community uses NNTP, why don’t we just
get rid of it and force those users to use the web interface like
everyone else?” - do you REALLY want to go down that road AGAIN?

I certainly don’t. As I said, what we have here now works well enough;
it’s a compromise that allows those people like you and me who use NNTP
to continue to use NNTP, and those who want the ability to make quick
edits to do so.

Remember that in the openSUSE project, we value choice. We accept and
respect that there are different ways to work, different preferences for
applications, environments, tools or interfaces and different goals of
users and contributors. We value diversity and pluralism as a way of
addressing the needs of a broad variety of people. (From the guiding
principles)

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator

Jim Henderson wrote:
> say “you know, a minority of the community uses NNTP, why don’t we just
> get rid of it and force those users to use the web interface like
> everyone else?”

that too would solve the problem brought up in this thread…

as far as i can tell, the only real reason nntp was kept was in the
hope that the devs would embrace the entire community (rather than
stick to themselves)…an idea that for most part has not taken hold…

so, maybe the experiment and its limitations should be termed a
failure, close it down and just move on…

that would also solve the dissimilar message base and the too short
edit window…

you know, i didn’t even know there was an http forum until one day i
had an OS problem, went (back) to the newsgroup and saw a note there
that the group was moving to nntp//:opensuse.org.* so i did also…and
suddenly there were about a million broken links and weirdness and . .
… i was told there was nothing that could be done because of the http
sides requirements…

yet, the broken links are almost gone now…

maybe this too will be fixed…eventually, even if it is impossible
to revisit the send-then-edit decision now…


palladium

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:55:20 +0000, palladium wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> say “you know, a minority of the community uses NNTP, why don’t we just
>> get rid of it and force those users to use the web interface like
>> everyone else?”
>
> that too would solve the problem brought up in this thread…

Sure, but at the same time, it would likely alienate those who do use
NNTP - some of whom (such as yourself) contribute quite a lot. So it’s a
balancing act.

> as far as i can tell, the only real reason nntp was kept was in the hope
> that the devs would embrace the entire community (rather than stick to
> themselves)…an idea that for most part has not taken hold…

Well, some devs perhaps lurk - there’s no real way of knowing. But it’s
also here because the Novell forums (from which one of the communities in
the merge) have it, and it was functionality that was deemed that was
wanted. Again, offering choices because of an understanding that people
work in different ways.

> you know, i didn’t even know there was an http forum until one day i had
> an OS problem, went (back) to the newsgroup and saw a note there that
> the group was moving to nntp//:opensuse.org.* so i did also…and
> suddenly there were about a million broken links and weirdness and . . .
> i was told there was nothing that could be done because of the http
> sides requirements…
>
> yet, the broken links are almost gone now…
>
> maybe this too will be fixed…eventually, even if it is impossible
> to revisit the send-then-edit decision now…

Perhaps. I’m not saying that it would be impossible to fix the
dissimilarity, but that it would require custom coding, and that
introduces additional constraints on the system - such as maintaining the
custom code, updating it, and additional QA testing when a version update
comes along for vBulletin. All part of the balancing act.

As is ensuring that functionality that’s in place today doesn’t
inadvertently disappear when an upgrade takes place - which is one of the
bigger points in favour of not heavily customising the code but saying
that where we are today is “good enough”.

It took me years to figure out that aiming for “perfect” is a losing
person’s game - because you never get to “perfect”, but if you wait for
it, then you never make your code available. There comes a point where
you have to say “this is good enough” and put your system in place.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be improved, but it does mean that when you
make improvements, you have to be much more meticulous and aware not just
of how the changes affect the system, but also how the changes affect the
users of the system.

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator