Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On 2017-01-03 13:02:28 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Yeah, I was doing parallel pulls of different branches in git via shell > script, and it seems the size of this commit showed me that doesn't > work. Sorry. Shouldn't you check the results of something like this before pushing? Sorry for piling on, but that seems like a quite critical step. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
At 2017-01-03 18:46:32 +0100, mag...@hagander.net wrote: > > Thoughts? I think we should stop making wholesale changes to copyright notices every year. -- Abhijit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
Magnus Hagander writes: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Somehow the reset is clobbering local configuration on some members? > I doubt that. I think that was probably never configured, it just didn't > show up when everything was working. > I don't know what the buildfarm run, but perhaps it's trying to inject a > merge commit there or something, and that's why it's failing on not having > a name? AFAICS, for a pre-existing branch it'll just do # do a checkout in case the work tree has been removed # this is harmless if it hasn't my @colog = `git checkout . 2>&1`; my @pulllog = `git pull 2>&1`; More reports are coming in now, and it's clear that only some of the critters are failing. It sort of looks like the fastest machines are the unhappy ones, which might mean that the ones that aren't failing happened to never pull the bad commit, because they were busy rebuilding other branches while it was there. > I'm guessing the solution is to reset the 9.2 branch to a point prior to > the commit and then pull again? Or wouldn't just a rebase work? Flushing the local mirror would likely be the easiest way out. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > >> Ok. Now let's wait for the fallout from the reset. This is an > interesting > >> experiment, we'll find out how many people are annoyed by a reset :-). > > > I bet a number of buildfarm machines will dislike it :( > > Early returns don't look good, eg on termite > > From git://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql >7e3ae54..83a25a5 REL9_2_STABLE -> REL9_2_STABLE >7e3ae54..83a25a5 github/REL9_2_STABLE -> github/REL9_2_STABLE > From /home/pgbuildfarm/buildroot-termite/pgmirror > + 19371e1...83a25a5 REL9_2_STABLE -> origin/REL9_2_STABLE > (forced update) > > *** Please tell me who you are. > > Run > > git config --global user.email "y...@example.com" > git config --global user.name "Your Name" > > to set your account's default identity. > Omit --global to set the identity only in this repository. > > fatal: empty ident not > allowed > > Somehow the reset is clobbering local configuration on some members? > I doubt that. I think that was probably never configured, it just didn't show up when everything was working. I don't know what the buildfarm run, but perhaps it's trying to inject a merge commit there or something, and that's why it's failing on not having a name? It *should* certainly not be required to have a name in order to pull. > We should advise buildfarm owners how to fix that. > > I'm guessing the solution is to reset the 9.2 branch to a point prior to the commit and then pull again? Or wouldn't just a rebase work? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
Magnus Hagander writes: >> Ok. Now let's wait for the fallout from the reset. This is an interesting >> experiment, we'll find out how many people are annoyed by a reset :-). > I bet a number of buildfarm machines will dislike it :( Early returns don't look good, eg on termite From git://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql 7e3ae54..83a25a5 REL9_2_STABLE -> REL9_2_STABLE 7e3ae54..83a25a5 github/REL9_2_STABLE -> github/REL9_2_STABLE From /home/pgbuildfarm/buildroot-termite/pgmirror + 19371e1...83a25a5 REL9_2_STABLE -> origin/REL9_2_STABLE (forced update) *** Please tell me who you are. Run git config --global user.email "y...@example.com" git config --global user.name "Your Name" to set your account's default identity. Omit --global to set the identity only in this repository. fatal: empty ident not allowed Somehow the reset is clobbering local configuration on some members? We should advise buildfarm owners how to fix that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
Magnus Hagander writes: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Ok. Now let's wait for the fallout from the reset. This is an interesting >> experiment, we'll find out how many people are annoyed by a reset :-). > Yeah, and how many had time to pull. It was only out there for 15 minutes > or so. I hadn't pulled it, so no problem from here. > I bet a number of buildfarm machines will dislike it :( We might be saved by the fact that Bruce pushed all the minor back-branch updates first --- the buildfarm critters were still working through those, or at least the ones using run_branches.pl were, when you pushed the reset. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/3/17 11:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> I've pushed a reset to the master repo. Working on the mirror now. >> > > Please don't forget github. :) > > Handled, thanks for the reminder. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:57:44PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I'm leaning for +1 for resetting. It'll be a pain for any mirrors of the > repo, but I think the clean history is worth it. > > > > It seems bruce pushed a whole bunch of merge conflicts, and possibly more. I > think his commit sscripts are badly broken. > > I've pushed a reset to the master repo. Working on the mirror now. Yeah, I was doing parallel pulls of different branches in git via shell script, and it seems the size of this commit showed me that doesn't work. Sorry. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 01/03/2017 07:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> wrote: >> >> On 01/03/2017 07:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset the master repo > to get > rid of it? > > If so, we need to do it *now* beore people get a chance to mirror it > properly.. > > Thoughts? > > If not, just a revert should work of course.. > > OK, not sure how this happened but I think it has to do with my accidentally doing a 'pull' after the changes, and doing multiple branches. Whatever you suggest is fine --- I will wait. >>> I'm leaning for +1 for resetting. It'll be a pain for any mirrors of the >>> repo, but I think the clean history is worth it. >>> >>> >>> It seems bruce pushed a whole bunch of merge conflicts, and possibly >> more. >> I think his commit sscripts are badly broken. >> >> I've pushed a reset to the master repo. Working on the mirror now. >> > > Ok. Now let's wait for the fallout from the reset. This is an interesting > experiment, we'll find out how many people are annoyed by a reset :-). Yeah, and how many had time to pull. It was only out there for 15 minutes or so. I bet a number of buildfarm machines will dislike it :( -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On 01/03/2017 07:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 01/03/2017 07:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset the master repo to get rid of it? If so, we need to do it *now* beore people get a chance to mirror it properly.. Thoughts? If not, just a revert should work of course.. OK, not sure how this happened but I think it has to do with my accidentally doing a 'pull' after the changes, and doing multiple branches. Whatever you suggest is fine --- I will wait. I'm leaning for +1 for resetting. It'll be a pain for any mirrors of the repo, but I think the clean history is worth it. It seems bruce pushed a whole bunch of merge conflicts, and possibly more. I think his commit sscripts are badly broken. I've pushed a reset to the master repo. Working on the mirror now. Ok. Now let's wait for the fallout from the reset. This is an interesting experiment, we'll find out how many people are annoyed by a reset :-). - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On 1/3/17 11:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: I've pushed a reset to the master repo. Working on the mirror now. Please don't forget github. :) -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 01/03/2017 07:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>> Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset the master repo >>> to get >>> rid of it? >>> >>> If so, we need to do it *now* beore people get a chance to mirror it >>> properly.. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> If not, just a revert should work of course.. >>> >> >> OK, not sure how this happened but I think it has to do with my >> accidentally doing a 'pull' after the changes, and doing multiple >> branches. >> >> Whatever you suggest is fine --- I will wait. >> > > I'm leaning for +1 for resetting. It'll be a pain for any mirrors of the > repo, but I think the clean history is worth it. > > It seems bruce pushed a whole bunch of merge conflicts, and possibly more. I think his commit sscripts are badly broken. I've pushed a reset to the master repo. Working on the mirror now. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On 01/03/2017 07:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset the master repo to get rid of it? If so, we need to do it *now* beore people get a chance to mirror it properly.. Thoughts? If not, just a revert should work of course.. OK, not sure how this happened but I think it has to do with my accidentally doing a 'pull' after the changes, and doing multiple branches. Whatever you suggest is fine --- I will wait. I'm leaning for +1 for resetting. It'll be a pain for any mirrors of the repo, but I think the clean history is worth it. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset the master repo to get > rid of it? > > If so, we need to do it *now* beore people get a chance to mirror it > properly.. > > Thoughts? > > If not, just a revert should work of course.. OK, not sure how this happened but I think it has to do with my accidentally doing a 'pull' after the changes, and doing multiple branches. Whatever you suggest is fine --- I will wait. --- > > //Magnus > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Sorry, this will be reverted and redone. > > > --- > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 05:38:05PM +, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Update copyright for 2017 > > > > Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.2 > > > > Branch > > -- > > REL9_2_STABLE > > > > Details > > --- > > http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/19371e148207c33d15fded06a178d5 > 8d0781141d > > > > Modified Files > > -- > > COPYRIGHT | 2 +- > > configure | 11 + > > configure.in | 4 + > > contrib/adminpack/adminpack.c | 4 + > > contrib/auth_delay/auth_delay.c | 4 + > > contrib/auto_explain/auto_explain.c | 4 + > > contrib/bloom/blcost.c | 48 + > > contrib/bloom/blinsert.c | 358 ++ > > contrib/bloom/bloom.h | 212 + > > contrib/bloom/blscan.c | 173 + > > contrib/bloom/blutils.c | 485 ++ > > contrib/bloom/blvacuum.c | 217 + > > contrib/bloom/blvalidate.c | 220 + > > contrib/dblink/dblink.c | 4 + > > contrib/dblink/dblink.h | 4 + > > contrib/dict_int/dict_int.c | 4 + > > contrib/dict_xsyn/dict_xsyn.c | 4 + > > contrib/dummy_seclabel/dummy_seclabel.c | 4 + > > contrib/file_fdw/file_fdw.c | 4 + > > contrib/fuzzystrmatch/fuzzystrmatch.c | 4 + > > contrib/fuzzystrmatch/levenshtein.c | 4 + > > contrib/intarray/_int_selfuncs.c | 341 ++ > > contrib/isn/isn.c | 4 + > > contrib/isn/isn.h | 4 + > > contrib/pageinspect/brinfuncs.c | 409 ++ > > contrib/pageinspect/fsmfuncs.c | 4 + > > contrib/pageinspect/ginfuncs.c | 283 ++ > > contrib/pageinspect/heapfuncs.c | 4 + > > contrib/pageinspect/rawpage.c | 4 + > > contrib/passwordcheck/passwordcheck.c | 4 + > > contrib/pg_prewarm/pg_prewarm.c | 206 + > > contrib/pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements.c | 4 + > > contrib/pg_trgm/trgm_regexp.c | 2244 + > > contrib/pg_upgrade/check.c | 5 + > > contrib/pg_upgrade/controldata.c | 5 + > > contrib/pg_upgrade/exec.c | 5 + > > contrib/pg_upgrade/option.c | 5 + > > contrib/pg_upgrade/pg_upgrade.h | 5 + > > contrib/pg_upgrade/server.c | 5 + > > contrib/pg_upgrade/test.sh | 4 + > > contrib/pg_visibility/pg_visibility.c | 749 +++ > > contrib/pgstattuple/pgstatapprox.c | 303 ++ > > contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c | 838 > > contrib/postgres_fdw/deparse.c | 2940 > > contrib/postgres_fdw/option.c | 363 ++ > > contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c | 5029 > > > contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.h | 172 + > > contrib/postgres_fdw/shippable.c | 214 + > > contrib/sepgsql/database.c | 4 + > > contrib/sepgsql/dml.c | 4 + > > contrib/sepgsql/hooks.c | 4 + > > contrib/sepgsql/label.c | 4 + > > contrib/sepgsql/launcher | 4 + > > contrib/sepgsql/proc.c | 4 + > > contrib/sepgsql/relation.c
