Re: [Tools-discuss] Charter diff feature

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 12 April 2013 08:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB14721F8A0C for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ShtpduqwutUi for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED3C21F87B6 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3C8NTIL015149; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:23:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3C8MoH9002934; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:23:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5167C45A.4070905@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:22:50 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <5166B0E3.6070103@cisco.com> <CANb2Ov+X6mab1ZBVFM_mJE_MHqYQbgETnu2PmdTHYq4FQPPUpw@mail.gmail.com> <5166EFA7.20307@cisco.com> <CAC4RtVCQeiuYHTw1wo5DC7HoFtWqJ-Vx7rCryJmNC-Kkm7hzHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCQeiuYHTw1wo5DC7HoFtWqJ-Vx7rCryJmNC-Kkm7hzHg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Charter diff feature
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:23:42 -0000

On 12/04/2013 01:37, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> My guess is that the tools server and the Datatracker database has a
>>> different idea of the timestamp for that charter for some reason. We
>>> did an import when the charter tool went up - the details escape me,
>>> but I think the Datatracker timestamp is probably the correct one in
>>> this case.
>>>
>>> In any case, charters actually have official sequential revision
>>> numbers now rather than the timestamps.
>> Thanks, that's the trick: focus on the charter revision, and not the dates.
> Further follow-up:
> The confusing dates come from the fact that changes that the
> Secretariat makes that do not affect the charter text (changes to
> milestones or chairs, for example) cause a "new" charter to appear on
> the tools WG charter page, though they don't cause a new charter
> version to appear in the datatracker.
As an improvement, we could delete the (confusing) dates, and focus only 
on the versions.

Regards, Benoit
>
> Barry
>
>