SABnzbd Forums

Fmstrat wrote:However, I thought I was following your directions for how I should contribute, since I was originally working on the master branch:

shypike wrote:

Fmstrat wrote:However, I thought I was following your directions for how I should contribute, since I was originally working on the master branch:

If you based in on "develop" then you did the right thing.
It's only me who is behind with the work of merging patches from "0.7.x" to "develop".
It requires a few evenings of concentrated work, those evening are hard to find

shypike wrote:Currently "develop" is seriously behind 0.7.x
This has to do with the fact the the Unicode-ification makes the code bases divergent.
As soon as 0.7.17Final is out, I will start the merge actions.
It has become quite a challenge.

shypike wrote:Currently "develop" is seriously behind 0.7.x
This has to do with the fact the the Unicode-ification makes the code bases divergent.
As soon as 0.7.17Final is out, I will start the merge actions.
It has become quite a challenge.

Fmstrat wrote: I got a PM about wanting to pull from my GitHub version and realized that you've made changes to the master that have overwritten my server priority updates in my own fork(I'm assuming because of overlapping lines). Were you ever able to look at that pull for integration?

shypike wrote:By the time I'm ready syncing "develop" with "0.7.x",
I will hand-merge your solution into "develop".
I'll get back to you then, so that you can easily create a new pull-request, so that your authorship is acknowledged.
Currently, I'm simply flooded with other things in the non-SABnzbd part of my life.

shypike wrote:"developer" is now about at the same level as "0.7.x".
You can rebase and create a new pull request.
Sorry for all the delays.

shypike wrote:By the time I'm ready syncing "develop" with "0.7.x",
I will hand-merge your solution into "develop".
I'll get back to you then, so that you can easily create a new pull-request, so that your authorship is acknowledged.
Currently, I'm simply flooded with other things in the non-SABnzbd part of my life.

Fmstrat wrote: Hi shypike,

I know this isn't the newest post on the topic, but since it's the first result on Google I figured I would respond here.

I spent the day today forking sabnzbd in github to https://github.com/Fmstrat/sabnzbd and I think I've got an enhancement in place for this. It took me longer to figure out the current process than it did to update for priorities.

As it stands now, Primary servers still outrank Backup servers regardless of the number set in the priority setting. 0 priority means it will be used first, higher numbers later. On upgrade everything is set to 0, retaining current randomized backup order.

The code has a ton of debug logging calls in it now that I'll remove after I've tested this for a while before pushing up to the master (new to git, so still figuring that out).

Thanks,
B.

sab12397 wrote:Thanks for the update I assume you mean the "develop" branch.

No idea where to start with this myself I was just enquiring if there was a chance of testing the priority code out?
I do not know if Fmstrat is still around to submit a pull request it would be a pity to not have this functionality.

Fmstrat wrote: I likely have a local copy of the change around here somewhere.

• Added a numerical priority option into the config_server and setup wizard skins
• In get_article, where it looped through the servers, it originally only skipped a server if it was a backup and all primaries had not been tried. I simply made it say: "If we are in primaries, and there is a primary left with higher priority, skip. If we are in backups, and there is a backup left with a higher priority, skip." This required passing the "servers" array to get_article, too.