Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Major upgrade to the IETF Datatracker

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:49:18 -0500

IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Shortly, the IETF datatracker will go through a major change, one of
> the two largest since it was first deployed more than 10 years ago.
> Hopefully no one will notice.
> 
> In order to achieve a nearly unnoticeable change-over, we now invite
> you to try out the new Datatracker, bang on it, kick the tires, and
> generally see if it works as well for you as the old one.
> 
> Try out the new Datatracker, and help us make a smooth transition.
> The new Datatracker is running here:
>  https://trackerbeta.ietf.org/

   I, of course, am interested in the IESG scribe template:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/scribe_template.html

so I tried

http://trackerbeta.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/scribe_template.html

   It seems to largely work, except that the Appendix contains no
actual comments.

   How will we test for these comments to show up?

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:54:40 +0100

Hi John,

>    How will we test for these comments to show up?

The way I see it, comparing these:

the missing comments is a clear bug, and I expect Ole will have
it fixed during tomorrow.

Thanks for checking and reporting!

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Ole Laursen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:25:27 +0100

>>    How will we test for these comments to show up?

Sorry, my bad, a problem in the presentation layer, fixed now. Thanks
for the report!

This should work as soon as the test server has picked up the new code.

Ole

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:25:53 +0100

> This should work as soon as the test server has picked up the new code.

Done at 15:27 CET (06:27 PST).

	Henrik

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:20:40 -0500

IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Unless a significant bug is discovered in the next few days, we plan
> to transition to the new database schema this coming weekend.

   I compared view-source of

and

finding 234 lines of diff, most of it inconsequential.

   The change from "ballot NNNN" to "ballot draft..." seems a good idea.
That's about 52 lines.

   There are 8 lines of differing spelling of IESG members -- not an
issue.

   There are 20 lines of differing indentation of "</ol>" in the Appendix
-- not a significant issue.

   The rest of the lines seem to come from differing _order_ of numbering
the AD comments on agenda items. I'm not sure whether that's an issue...

   It would approach a show-stopper were it differing order of the
agenda items themselves (between the agenda as published and the
scribe template), but if any such problem exists I didn't see it.

   If the issue is limited to the numbering of AD comments it's certainly
not a show-stopper; but it would constitute a nuisance as I prepare the
actual template for Narrative Minutes.

   The nuisance would be fairly significant if the ordering is not
predictable, so I guess I'm asking if there's a way to predict it. (It
used to be alphabetical by surname.)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]> (hat=NarrativeScribe)

---

From: Ole Laursen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:26:44 +0100

> scribe template), but if any such problem exists I didn't see it.

Yes, I think it's using more or less the same code.

> actual template for Narrative Minutes.

I've changed this now to extract the last name and sort on that -
before they were sorted on the full name.

Ole