- User Since
- Sep 9 2015, 9:17 PM (318 w, 2 d)
Wed, Oct 6
Yes, we must filter this stuff out (we discussed this issue with @zack some time ago, and you may see Torvalds' opinion too https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-boosts-microsoft-ntfs-support-as-linus-torvalds-complains-about-github-merges/ )
Tue, Oct 5
Tue, Sep 21
Mon, Sep 20
Sun, Sep 19
The agreement has been signed, so we can move forward and publish the blog post.
Sep 14 2021
Sep 5 2021
Aug 31 2021
Aug 30 2021
In the future we will also need to answer a more complex use-case where the iframe resembles more as an embedded copy of the archive.
Do you have an example of a complex usecase to get a better idea of your needs ?
Aug 28 2021
Thanks for all this great work...
A few questions/remarks:
- where is the Permalinks tab? I do not see it in the images
- for the url, what about "/embed/" instead of "/iframe/"? "embed" seems to be the canonical term used to designate this kind of things (see YouTube, etc.)
- instead of "go to the archive", why not "View in the Software Heritage Archive"?
- it's great that the iframe can use the width and height attibutes! How do you plan to handle strange values (e.g.: width=10px height=200%)?
Aug 23 2021
Jul 26 2021
Thanks for looking into this.
What about sending logs to a separate dedicated logging machine instead of storing them locally?
Jul 22 2021
Jul 21 2021
I am a bit puzzled by the numbers shown: eeally we have only 200k origins for GitLab.com.?
And we know we had some 1.5m origins for Google code, why only 700k shown here?
Jul 20 2021
Jun 26 2021
Jun 22 2021
Nice to see this moving forward!
Jun 18 2021
Jun 14 2021
Jun 11 2021
Great, it seems we are getting there :-)
Jun 7 2021
Thanks @ardumont for investigating this. The fact that the IA does not provide the LastModified information may make sense for their specific case (it is possible that they do not have kept the LastModified info from the original location).
May 29 2021
May 28 2021
May 25 2021
That will be helpful in general (to answer questions likes: which endpoint is over/underused for specific use cases) and also in view of seeing who over/underuses rate limits (e.g., to identify the need of having more generous rate limits for specific use cases).
May 20 2021
May 19 2021
May 12 2021
May 11 2021
May 10 2021
A lot has changed since this was opened:
May 8 2021
May 7 2021
@anlambert ; ping me when this is done, so we can answer some pending requests :-)
Apr 29 2021
Apr 28 2021
> I also recall now that vincent added a graph  recently enough.
This to try and compare a bit the counter approaches together.
So that's still using the old plumbing at least for that part.
Apr 27 2021
Apr 26 2021
Apr 24 2021
Apr 21 2021
Thanks @ardumont ... so it appears that adapting the logic is easy... may you do it?
@anlambert may you look into the needed modification of the UI, to enable the new type of save code now payloads for selected authenticated users?
Apr 20 2021
Thanks, this is quite useful indeed.
Thanks for looking into this. If I look at https://grafana.softwareheritage.org/d/WXRVVc_Mz/save-code-now?viewPanel=4&orgId=1&from=1617954242247&to=1617975842247&var-environment=production&var-instance=moma.internal.softwareheritage.org&var-status=All&var-load_task_status=All&var-visit_type=All it seems there are also some 255 requests "not yet scheduled". Maybe it's the same issue?
Apr 19 2021
Thanks, it is indeed an urgent matter, as various journals depend on this!
Well, it seems we have been hit by this again, in a different form:
Apr 16 2021
Thanks to all of you for this dicussion and proposals.
Great. In addition to the content of the free form field, the standard answer should contain proper boilerplate reminding what is expected in a Save Code Now request, along the lines of what is written in the "Help" tab of https://archive.softwareheritage.org/save/
On a related note, it may be useful to regularly report requests that did not complete (either as success or failure) in a reasonable amount of time after being scheduled.
Apr 15 2021
Apr 14 2021
Great news :-)