[Cc back to openguides-dev since this has a wider scope]
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 02:15:47PM +0100, Kake L Pugh wrote:
> On Tue 01 Jul 2008, Dominic Hargreaves <dom(a)earth.li> wrote:
> > [...] essentially the point was made that there is still a nasty fork
> > between RGL and london.openguides.org [...] I therefore decided it
> > was best to get the latter back up as soon as possible, if nothing
> > else so the content could be taken from there and put on RGL.
> There seems to be a bit of a misconception here, which is bothering
> me. RGL was never intended as a fork of - or a replacement for - the
> Open Guide to London.
> It's simply a website run by me and Bob, for the pleasure and
> convenience of us and our friends, which happens to run on the
> OpenGuides software. It's not any kind of democracy, and I would be
> quite unhappy if anyone attempted to turn it into The Official London
> Open Guide Wot Anyone Can Have A Say In.
Okay. I misunderstood then. I was basing my remarks on Ivor's
unhappiness with not being able to access the content he'd previously
put into OGL; that is probably conflating things somewhat.
> I mention this not out of pettiness, but because I think it's
> important for the OpenGuides project that the OpenGuides team aren't
> seen as asserting any rights or expectations over the content or
> ownership of the things people choose to do with our software.
Fair enough. Although we do have some duty/interest as a project in
promoting certain qualities (for example, quality of data, openness,
accessible/suitable for all-comers) in the guides we promote. When OGL
was down, it was referring visitors to RGL, and RGL is also promoted
on the project home page. Given your above comments, would it be better
to remove the link from the project home page? (I'm really not asking
this in an incendiary fashion, I really do want to know people's opinions).
I am also concerned about the possible confusion resulting from
offering people two London guides, without explaining how they differ.
> Re adding OGL content to RGL - can I ask that nobody decide to be
> "helpful" and start doing this, please. RGL is a separate thing to
> OGL and is run and structured in a very different way.
I think it would be useful, to avoid confusion, to explain a bit more
about this. Maybe a page on RGL itself (apologies if this is already
there and I missed it).
Clearly there is a balance to be struck between independence and the
ability for people to use the software how they like (which I strongly
support) and providing a unified resource for people to get information
about their locality in (see also my dreams about having a central
portal site). We should aim to support both these goals.
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
I think I know why OpenGuides has a habit of occasionally
taking over servers. If you've experienced problems with occasional
ridiculously high load averages, take a look at the Action paragraph
In the short term, I suggest that anyone who's been having trouble
with OpenGuides taking over their machines should comment the per-user
RSS feed links out of userstats.tt - copy it to your custom_templates
directory and either delete everything between [% IF username %] and
the next [% END %] statement (inclusive), or change [% IF username %]
to [% IF username AND 0 %] - both will have the same effect.
I suspect that I have at last found out the thing that makes
OpenGuides take people's servers over. It's the per-user RSS feeds,
which are usually linked from e.g.
The problematic feeds are those which omit minor edits, and they're
only a problem on large guides (Cambridge is fine, RGL is not). The
reason for this is that they effectively select _everything_ from the
database and then winnow it down. When a spider is hitting one of
these feeds every second... I think you can see where this is going,
and it's not pretty.
The reason this has gone unnoticed for so long is that (a) nobody
really uses these feeds anyway, so they only get accessed by spiders
etc, and spiders aren't going to email us and say "hey, this link is
very slow", and (b) these feeds are the only thing in OpenGuides that
use "last n changes" as a selection criterion - Recent Changes uses
"last n days", which is much more efficient.
The root problem is with the _find_recent_changed_by_criteria method
in Wiki::Toolkit::Store::Database, specifically the "metadata_wasnt"
parameter in combination with the "limit" one. I am working on a
rewrite of this method to make it more efficient, but this is going to
require some thinking and hence some time.