Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Marc G. Fournier wrote: Actually, branch in one to two weeks has been the status quo almost since day one ... not that I'm against branch on release, I'm only saying that we've followed this same procedure on branching since ... forever. That is incorrect. See earlier in this thread. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:36:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when there has been no code drift is pretty simple. Well, it's not hard, but it is tedious. Bruce and I, who are the people most likely to bear the brunt of such tedium, both voted to wait a week or so before branching. Peter did not bother to vote. I assume this vote was taken out on -core? I don't mind -core deciding on this, not at all, but I would appreciate it if you would post the result of the vote on -hackers. It makes a lot of difference with an open-ended we'll branch sometmie later and a we talked about it, and we decided we'll branch in one to two weeks unless something unusual comes up. If you alraedy did this and I missed it in the mail-flood around fixing all the presskits, I apologize in advance ;-) //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:57:16AM +, Dave Page wrote: On Feb 5, 2008 9:00 AM, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume this vote was taken out on -core? I don't mind -core deciding on this, not at all, but I would appreciate it if you would post the result of the vote on -hackers. It wasn't a 'vote' in the formal sense. It was just a discussion with people airing their opinion. *how* you came to the decision isn't really what I care about in this case.. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
On Feb 5, 2008 9:00 AM, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume this vote was taken out on -core? I don't mind -core deciding on this, not at all, but I would appreciate it if you would post the result of the vote on -hackers. It wasn't a 'vote' in the formal sense. It was just a discussion with people airing their opinion. /D ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when there has been no code drift is pretty simple. Well, it's not hard, but it is tedious. Bruce and I, who are the people most likely to bear the brunt of such tedium, both voted to wait a week or so before branching. Peter did not bother to vote. I suspect that you made this decision thinking that it didn't affect anybody else much. But it does affect buildfarm members. The buildfarm requires manual adjustment for each new branch to be built. Up to now (as Peter showed) owners have been able to say Oh, there's a new release. I'll start building the new branch. With the branch delayed they will have to say Oh, there's a new release. I wonder when they will branch so I can start building the new branch. I suspect there are some buildfarm owners who don't read -hackers religiously, and who will be somewhat in the dark. This probably wasn't on the core team's horizon - IIRC Dave is the only member of core who runs a buildfarm member. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Gregory Stark wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: With the branch delayed they will have to say Oh, there's a new release. I wonder when they will branch so I can start building the new branch. No, I wrote that, not Tom. Your snipping went slightly astray. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
On Feb 5, 2008 11:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This probably wasn't on the core team's horizon - IIRC Dave is the only member of core who runs a buildfarm member. To be honest the zoo beside me didn't even cross my mind when that thread happened. I didn't pay much attention as it's doesn't affect me much - plus I've spent the last 2 months double patching pgAdmin since the EDB QA team started finding all sorts of obscure buglets, so I can see where Tom's coming from. /D ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:00:29 +0100 Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:36:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when there has been no code drift is pretty simple. Well, it's not hard, but it is tedious. Bruce and I, who are the people most likely to bear the brunt of such tedium, both voted to wait a week or so before branching. Peter did not bother to vote. I assume this vote was taken out on -core? I don't mind -core deciding on this, not at all, but I would appreciate it if you would post the result of the vote on -hackers. It makes a lot of difference with an open-ended we'll branch sometmie later and a we talked about it, and we decided we'll branch in one to two weeks unless something unusual comes up. Actually, branch in one to two weeks has been the status quo almost since day one ... not that I'm against branch on release, I'm only saying that we've followed this same procedure on branching since ... forever. - Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHqTeE4QvfyHIvDvMRAlisAKCxactS3Xp6V9/PbOOn11vhPioQaACgm+Ck psuY9S9odAYdj91T5/QlYDc= =CdzR -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: To avoid double-patching effort. I think we'll branch fairly shortly, like in a week or so, but right now it'd mostly just create make-work for committers. Was that a big problem last release? Well, basically this happens at core's discretion, and we all feel that waiting a bit more will minimize work. If there were a lot of people chomping at the bit to start committing 8.4-only stuff, maybe we'd decide differently. But right now what's on my radar screen is still 8.3 bugs, eg the open patch for bug #3921, and we're expecting a few more new reports as soon as 8.3.0 spreads. As best I recall, the immediate branch after 8.2 was the exception not the rule --- we've usually waited longer than that. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: I don't see the branch point for REL8_3_STABLE - has that been done? I thought it would happen at the same time as we tagged the release. No, we will branch later. We need this to be created before buildfarm members can start testing 8.3. Nonsense. At the moment, HEAD is 8.3. True, but it won't show up under that heading, and buildfarm members won't be able to configure specific 8.3 testing until we branch. I still don't see why we wait to create the branch after tagging the release. There doesn't seem to be any point. To avoid double-patching effort. I think we'll branch fairly shortly, like in a week or so, but right now it'd mostly just create make-work for committers. Was that a big problem last release? cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Tom Lane wrote: As best I recall, the immediate branch after 8.2 was the exception not the rule --- we've usually waited longer than that. 8.2, 8.1, and 8.0 were branched off the x.y.0 release tag. 7.4 was branched at rc1, 7.3 was branched at beta4, 7.2 was branched at final release, 7.1 was branched at 7.1.1. So no. :-) Personally, I don't agree with following this endless release cycle with an additional indefinite waiting period. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Tom Lane wrote: As best I recall, the immediate branch after 8.2 was the exception not the rule --- we've usually waited longer than that. 8.2, 8.1, and 8.0 were branched off the x.y.0 release tag. 7.4 was branched at rc1, 7.3 was branched at beta4, 7.2 was branched at final release, 7.1 was branched at 7.1.1. So no. :-) Personally, I don't agree with following this endless release cycle with an additional indefinite waiting period. Yeah, that accords with my recollection. Also, it also would have been nice if there had been some information about what was going on. I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when there has been no code drift is pretty simple. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when there has been no code drift is pretty simple. Well, it's not hard, but it is tedious. Bruce and I, who are the people most likely to bear the brunt of such tedium, both voted to wait a week or so before branching. Peter did not bother to vote. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
