Lou Berger <lberger@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It would be good to capture/report any issues you have with the new tool so
> that it can be addressed before the old archives go away. The biggest issue
> that I've heard is yet to be address is speed to access/browse a WG archive
> -- which interestingly enough I don't see in the open tickets [1]...
a) mhonarc is just plain faster, particularly when you know what you want.
Subjectively it's molasses vs rockets, I have no objective measurements,
because I use them differently.
b) time-sequence reading is better with mhonarc.
c) it's obvious how to link to an entire thread, and to move around it.
d) just yesterday, I tried to search for a thread I knew existed, but my
keywords did not find anything. Why, because the thread was prior was
about creating the TLA, and we didn't use the TLA yet :-)
I resorted to scanning the subject lines via IMAP, which took about
2 minutes and found the thread I cared about.
e) the mailarchive is also slow because it is too responsive and keeps doing
new searches, when really I just want to wander through what it's already
returned.
I don't see how I can open bugs about these, because they are about
fundamental design decisions.
I think that many of us are happy that we have the Archived-At: headers
in place, and that it's all subject to full text search.
And I think that it is 80% of the actual under-the-covers moving parts, but
we really want the results of the search to be links into the mhonarc to
read. (And some people would like imap: links I think)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
