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

John Leslie <> Wed, 22 February 2012 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634B521E8040 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:20:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.402
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HCNB4c2gScWj for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFAD21E800F for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 104) id 38C4333C23; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:20:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:20:40 -0500
From: John Leslie <>
Message-ID: <20120222032040.GB5226@verdi>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Major upgrade to the IETF Datatracker
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the IOLA / DB Schema Conversion Tool Project <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:20:40 -0000

IETF Chair <> 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


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

   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 <> (hat=NarrativeScribe)