On 2025-10-03 Fr 10:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
If you look at this more closely, creating postgres-full.xml and running
the syntax check perform the same operations, except that the latter
throws away the output. So it seems redundant to build a whole new code
path for thi
Hi,
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 23:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I suspect what you're really after here is the functionality of the
> > check-tabs and check-nbsp targets. So the new Perl script really just
> > has to cover those two and doesn't have to bother with xmllint. An
Hi,
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 21:43, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 2025-10-02 Th 8:52 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> I think there is one more problem that we need to think about. This
> test runs when the xmllint is enabled but it also requires docbook
> (docbook-xml on some OSes) to be installed,
On 01.10.25 22:02, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
(Maybe these discussions could have been in a new thread and not hidden
under some unrelated thing.)
OK, thanks, looks good. How do we go about doing what Tom wants (i.e.
running the tests by default) under meson. I think in the Makefile we
could just
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I suspect what you're really after here is the functionality of the
> check-tabs and check-nbsp targets. So the new Perl script really just
> has to cover those two and doesn't have to bother with xmllint. And
> then you just call that script as part of the postgres
On 2025-10-02 Th 8:52 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 15:27, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Oh, ok, I missed that about meson. I will adjust the Makefile.
I think there is one more problem that we need to think about. This
test runs when the xmllint is enabled but it also requir
Hi,
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 15:27, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Oh, ok, I missed that about meson. I will adjust the Makefile.
I think there is one more problem that we need to think about. This
test runs when the xmllint is enabled but it also requires docbook
(docbook-xml on some OSes) to be instal
On 2025-10-02 Th 2:58 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 at 23:02, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2025-10-01 We 8:27 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 at 15:09, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 22:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Hi Bilal,
This g
Hi,
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 at 23:02, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 2025-10-01 We 8:27 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 at 15:09, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 22:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>> Hi Bilal,
> >>>
> >>> This got preempted slightly
On 2025-10-01 We 8:27 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 at 15:09, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 22:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Hi Bilal,
This got preempted slightly by Tom's commit 170a8a3f460, but I think
it's worth doing. I tried to simplify it some. S
On 2025-09-12 Fr 10:12 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 17:54, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Ah, you’re right, but then again, I’d expect ALL_SGML to be used consistently,
but it isn't and I didn't check.
v3 does that.
Note that GENERATED_SGML where'te included in these two t
On 2025-09-12 Fr 10:12 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 17:54, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Ah, you’re right, but then again, I’d expect ALL_SGML to be used consistently,
but it isn't and I didn't check.
v3 does that.
Note that GENERATED_SGML where'te included in these two
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Sept 2025 at 17:54, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Ah, you’re right, but then again, I’d expect ALL_SGML to be used
> consistently, but it isn't and I didn't check.
> v3 does that.
> Note that GENERATED_SGML where'te included in these two targets but I think
> there's no harm in check
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:54 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 2025-09-01 Mo 11:44 AM, Florents Tselai wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1 Sep 2025, at 4:35 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Florents Tselai wrote:
>
> While working on this https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6020/
>
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Florents Tselai wrote:
> While working on this https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6020/
> I discovered that when changing for func/func-aggregate.sgml, the HTML
> wasn’t marked for update.
>
> IIUC the doc/Makefile should be updated as attached, right ?
>
Go
On 2025-09-01 Mo 11:44 AM, Florents Tselai wrote:
On 1 Sep 2025, at 4:35 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Florents Tselai wrote:
While working on this https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6020/
I discovered that when changing for func/func-aggregate.sgml, the HT
On 1 Sep 2025, at 4:35 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Florents Tselai wrote:
While working on this https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6020/
I discovered that when changing for func/func-aggregate.sgml, the HTML
wasn’t marked for update.
IIUC the doc/Makefile shou
On 4 Aug 2025, at 4:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2025-07-29 Tu 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
OK. I'm inclined to do this after the CF finishes, to avoid collisions
with other patches. I assume it's going to make the CFbot fairly unhappy.
+1 for proceeding that way. (I
On 2025-07-29 Tu 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
OK. I'm inclined to do this after the CF finishes, to avoid collisions
with other patches. I assume it's going to make the CFbot fairly unhappy.
+1 for proceeding that way. (I did not look at whether the proposed
changes are
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> OK. I'm inclined to do this after the CF finishes, to avoid collisions
> with other patches. I assume it's going to make the CFbot fairly unhappy.
+1 for proceeding that way. (I did not look at whether the proposed
changes are sane, but I agree that this'll inevitably b
On 2025-07-29 Tu 2:15 AM, jian he wrote:
hi.
after run the v2 python script and ``git apply
v2-0001-update-filelist.sgml-allfiles.sgml.no-cfbot``
git status -u
shows:
Changes not staged for commit:
(use "git add/rm ..." to update what will be committed)
(use "git restore ..." to discard
hi.
after run the v2 python script and ``git apply
v2-0001-update-filelist.sgml-allfiles.sgml.no-cfbot``
git status -u
shows:
Changes not staged for commit:
(use "git add/rm ..." to update what will be committed)
(use "git restore ..." to discard changes in working directory)
modified
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:16 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> In short, ready to commit (see last paragraph below however), but the
> committer will need to run the python script at the time of commit on the
> then-current tree.
>
hi.
more explanation, since the python script seems quite large.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 1:11 PM Corey Huinker
wrote:
> The following is step-by-step logic.
>>
>>
> The end result (one file per section) seems good to me.
>
> I suspect that reviewer burden may be the biggest barrier to going
> forward. Perhaps breaking up the changes so that each new sect1 file
>
> The following is step-by-step logic.
>
>
The end result (one file per section) seems good to me.
I suspect that reviewer burden may be the biggest barrier to going forward.
Perhaps breaking up the changes so that each new sect1 file gets its own
commit, allowing the reviewer to more easily (if
25 matches
Mail list logo
