Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs
2009/11/26 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but what about the removal of those two chapters suggested? I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual. As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching and tagging conventions would be a lot more useful. Here's an updated patch that does what I believe the consensus of this thread was. Unless objected, I will commit this later tonight. Patch now does: * As before, update cvs documentation and add git documentation * Remove cvsup documentation * Remove cvs internal documentation * Add a link to appendix H (the source code repository) from the general getting the source chapter. It does not add any proper documentation of exactly how we deal with branches and tags at a useful level - this will come later. I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally backpatch things like this though, so comments on that? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ cvs_docs.patch Description: Binary data -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 04:08:28PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: 2009/11/26 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but what about the removal of those two chapters suggested? I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual. As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching and tagging conventions would be a lot more useful. Here's an updated patch that does what I believe the consensus of this thread was. Unless objected, I will commit this later tonight. Patch now does: * As before, update cvs documentation and add git documentation * Remove cvsup documentation * Remove cvs internal documentation * Add a link to appendix H (the source code repository) from the general getting the source chapter. It does not add any proper documentation of exactly how we deal with branches and tags at a useful level - this will come later. I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally backpatch things like this though, so comments on that? +1 for back-patching. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter da...@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally backpatch things like this though, so comments on that? The sort of people who would actually have a use for the information are unlikely to be looking at back branches, so I don't particularly see the point. But if you wanna do the work ... 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] cvs chapters in our docs
2009/12/7 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally backpatch things like this though, so comments on that? The sort of people who would actually have a use for the information are unlikely to be looking at back branches, so I don't particularly see the point. But if you wanna do the work ... I'd do 8.4, becuase that's what shows up under /current/ on the website. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Magnus Hagander escribió: 2009/12/7 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally backpatch things like this though, so comments on that? The sort of people who would actually have a use for the information are unlikely to be looking at back branches, so I don't particularly see the point. But if you wanna do the work ... I'd do 8.4, becuase that's what shows up under /current/ on the website. 8.4 makes sense to me. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Chris Browne wrote: Wikis have a habit of getting out of date in ways that make them even more difficult to rectify, because the data is frequently structured in a way that doesn't make it particularly easy to pull it out and transform it into other forms. The standard way to backup a Mediawiki install is to export to XML: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Export At which point you can transform it as easily as any other structured document and then re-import. Given that the pages on the PostgreSQL wiki about CVS and Git have been the most up to date resources on those topics available since shortly after their respective creation dates, I'm not sure what one could criticize about them as an information source in this area. -- Greg Smith2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Robert Haas wrote: I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software: ;-) This initial checkout is a little slower than simply downloading a filenametar.gz/filename file; expect it to take 40 minutes or so if you have a 28.8K modem. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: Robert Haas wrote: I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software: ;-) The depressing thing is we can't even blame that on Berkeley ... if memory serves, I wrote it :-( 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: Robert Haas wrote: I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software: ;-) The depressing thing is we can't even blame that on Berkeley ... if memory serves, I wrote it :-( There is no mention of paper tape or punch cards in our docs. :-) -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
2009/11/29 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us: Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software: ;-) This initial checkout is a little slower than simply downloading a filenametar.gz/filename file; expect it to take 40 minutes or so if you have a 28.8K modem. Yes, and what about all the people using carrier pidgeon to download Postgres? I think our documentation is neglecting this substantial and vital portion of our user community. Cheers, BJ -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Brendan Jurd wrote: 2009/11/29 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us: Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software: ;-) This initial checkout is a little slower than simply downloading a filenametar.gz/filename file; expect it to take 40 minutes or so if you have a 28.8K modem. Yes, and what about all the people using carrier pidgeon to download Postgres? I think our documentation is neglecting this substantial and vital portion of our user community. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a carrier pigeon with a flash card tied to his leg. [1] 11-month-old bird armed with a 4GB memory stick... the carrier pigeon delivered 4GB of data 60 miles in a little over an hour [1] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Carrier-Pigeon-Officially-Beats-DSL-104393 -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes a few very out of date comments about cvs I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information added to the web site or the wiki. (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.) Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki? I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the content is adequately covered elsewhere. In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section Getting the Source, which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate instructions on the web site. I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... ...Robert -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section Getting the Source, which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate instructions on the web site. I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. I agree in general, but information about version control isn't really part of the product. For example, if we switch from CVS to Git, and decide to pull the plug on the CVS server (hypotethically; in reality I'm sure we'd leave the CVS server around for historical purposes), the information becomes obsolete. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:29, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes a few very out of date comments about cvs I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information added to the web site or the wiki. (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.) Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki? I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the content is adequately covered elsewhere. In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section Getting the Source, which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate instructions on the web site. I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... Well, my original suggestion had it still there, just not the documentation that's not really ours to maintain (like how tags and branches work in cvs). Are you ok with that path? (We already reference the wiki for how to work with CVS, so there is nothing new there) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:29, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes a few very out of date comments about cvs I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information added to the web site or the wiki. (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.) Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki? I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the content is adequately covered elsewhere. In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section Getting the Source, which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate instructions on the web site. I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... Well, my original suggestion had it still there, just not the documentation that's not really ours to maintain (like how tags and branches work in cvs). Are you ok with that path? (We already reference the wiki for how to work with CVS, so there is nothing new there) Barring protests, I tend to agree that there's little point in keeping the CVSup documentation around. I don't think it would be a bad thing to have a little bit of well-written documentation on CVS branches and tags, especially if it covered things like our particular tagging and branching conventions. But the current contents of that page don't appear to be worth much, so I don't think we'd be losing much if we got rid of it. Of course if someone wanted to rewrite it to be more useful that might be even better, but I'm not sure anyone wants to put in the effort. ...Robert -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Robert Haas wrote: I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. I agree in general, but information about version control isn't really part of the product. For example, if we switch from CVS to Git, and decide to pull the plug on the CVS server (hypotethically; in reality I'm sure we'd leave the CVS server around for historical purposes), the information becomes obsolete. If our docs are supposed to cover only information that's not subject to change, they'll become quite short. I agree with Robert that moving the info from the SGML docs to the wiki isn't an improvement. 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] cvs chapters in our docs
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 16:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Robert Haas wrote: I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. I agree in general, but information about version control isn't really part of the product. For example, if we switch from CVS to Git, and decide to pull the plug on the CVS server (hypotethically; in reality I'm sure we'd leave the CVS server around for historical purposes), the information becomes obsolete. If our docs are supposed to cover only information that's not subject to change, they'll become quite short. I agree with Robert that moving the info from the SGML docs to the wiki isn't an improvement. I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but what about the removal of those two chapters suggested? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but what about the removal of those two chapters suggested? I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual. As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching and tagging conventions would be a lot more useful. 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] cvs chapters in our docs
pete...@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
a few very out of date comments about cvs
I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
added to the web site or the wiki.
(Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)
I think I'd rather see the documentation repaired in the CVS repository
where it happens to reside today.
Wikis have a habit of getting out of date in ways that make them even
more difficult to rectify, because the data is frequently structured in
a way that doesn't make it particularly easy to pull it out and
transform it into other forms.
Now, if someone knows a way of creating a Git repository[1] that tracks,
change-for-change, everything going on in a MediaWiki repository in a
textual form that would allow one to monitor everything going on, and
possibly even inject changes, that *would* be something.
(To *my* mind, the ultimate wiki platform that I have seen lately is
ikiwiki http://ikiwiki.info/, which manages the wiki in an SCM,
compiling the pages into HTML whenever things are changed. Should
cope with heavy query load rather well! But I digress...)
Footnotes:
[1] Or Darcs, Mercurial, SVN, or whatever...
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','linuxfinances.info').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/
Dijkstra probably hates me
(Linus Torvalds, in kernel/sched.c)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs
Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes a few very out of date comments about cvs (really, nobody has a 28k8 modem and does cvs over it today. Even your cellphone is orders of magnitude faster than that). Other than this patch, I would suggest that we completely remove the following two chapters: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/cvs-tree.html -- because anybody doing anything with branching or tagging today is *not* going to be using cvs, they will be using git. Let's not lead people down the wrong path :-) http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/cvsup.html -- does anybody ever use this? It's a complete PITA to get cvsup working on any platform I know of. And since we already allow both rsync and git to get the full repository, there's not much point to it. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ cvs_docs.patch Description: Binary data -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes a few very out of date comments about cvs I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information added to the web site or the wiki. (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.) -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes a few very out of date comments about cvs I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information added to the web site or the wiki. (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.) Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki? I don't disagree - if people are fine with that, it sounds good to me. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- 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] cvs chapters in our docs
On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes a few very out of date comments about cvs I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information added to the web site or the wiki. (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.) Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki? I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the content is adequately covered elsewhere. In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section Getting the Source, which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate instructions on the web site. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
