This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[db-wg] Database release 1.79.1 deployed to RC environment

Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Database release 1.79.1 deployed to RC environment
Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Database release 1.79.1 deployed to RC environment

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Peter Koch pk at DENIC.DE
Thu May 7 10:52:07 CEST 2015

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:31:23AM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:

> > As far as I know this was not explicitly specified beforehand, so it
> > would be good to have a clear WG consensus call on this now.
> 
> +1

ref ambiguity: OK for the consensus call or OK for the proposed behaviour?

While I have been using the (older) timestamps as a hint for (potentially reduced)
quality in the past, it is obvious that a more recent timestamp does not really provide
as much confidence as an explicit data validation timestamp, so routine
updates might actually be detrimental to the intented goal if too  much is
read into the last-modified timestamp.

-Peter

Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Database release 1.79.1 deployed to RC environment
Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Database release 1.79.1 deployed to RC environment

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]