Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> When I ask it for the "last 100 in last 3 days" this morning,
> I'm only getting about 25 items, because it seems to cut off
> anything not dated today.
Nothing to do with the date; the "hide minor edits" option is buggy and
shows the wrong number of results. ... Okay, should be fixed now.
> Also, shouldn't it be "the last 100
entries in the last 3 days"
> instead of "in last 3 days"?
What? Is no good grammar? You no like?! ;)
On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 07:05, tarquin wrote:
the days limit is sort of irrelevant now anyway -- I
have to get 1000 -
1200 to catch all overnight edits.
I've been considering just dumping the date limit entirely. The
interaction between the count limit and the date limit is confusing, and
since the tables are indexed on timestamp, cutting out entries older
than X days shouldn't have any speedup effect when we never get that
far.
I think it would be better just to show X entries; on the more active
wikis this keeps the list from getting too long (if you showed _every_
edit from the last 7 days on the English wikipedia, it would be very
long indeed!) or too short (on some of the less active languages, a
couple weeks might go by with few or no edits).
BTW, when does the server think a new day starts? I
once saw it put the
new date in the RC list at the 6am point (though that may have been when
I was on GMT and the server wasn't)
The big date headers are placed based on midnight in your local time (as
set in your preferences, otherwise UTC). Once upon a time they were
placed based on server time and showed up at weird places if you had a
different timezone set, but that was fixed a while ago.
The "in last X days" setting just takes X*24 hours minus the current
time and ignores any changes prior that. So, the date cutoff isn't (or
shouldn't be!) relevant to that setting.
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)