Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:22:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Here's a draft patch for this. Most of it is mechanical removal of
>> infrastructure for building the INSTALL file. If anyone wants to
>> bikeshed on the new wording of README, feel free.
> Thanks for putting
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:22:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a draft patch for this. Most of it is mechanical removal of
> infrastructure for building the INSTALL file. If anyone wants to
> bikeshed on the new wording of README, feel free.
Thanks for putting this together. That looks reas
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-12-21 10:46:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Let's go with "/devel/ in master and a number in release branches"
>> for now, and tweak that if the web team wants to take on maintaining
>> a redirect. I'll put together a concrete patch proposal in a little
>> bit.
> Coo
Hi,
On 2023-12-21 10:46:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2023-12-21 10:22:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We could make it version-specific,
> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/installation.html
> >> and task src/tools/version_stamp.pl with updating it. But that's
> >>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-12-21 10:22:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could make it version-specific,
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/installation.html
>> and task src/tools/version_stamp.pl with updating it. But that's
>> problematic for not-yet-released branches (there's no 17 today
Hi,
On 2023-12-21 10:22:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the only real question is what URL to point at exactly. We can't
> simply say
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/installation.html
>
> because that will be wrong for any version more than one major
> release back.
Right.
>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-12-21 08:39:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:36:28AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I thought the plan was to get rid of that file, in pursuit of making
>>> our distribution tarballs be more or less pure git pulls. Instead of
>>> expending
> On 21 Dec 2023, at 10:16, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-12-20 15:28:56 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> + time make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} -C doc/src/sgml all INSTALL
>> unrelated pet peeve: "make -C doc/src/sgml all" doesn't build all docs
>> targets..
>
> Well, building the P
Hi,
On 2023-12-21 08:39:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:36:28AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> >> We fairly regularly have commits breaking the generation of INSTALL. IIRC
> >> we
> >> recently discussed building it locally unconditionally, but I
Hi,
On 2023-12-20 15:28:56 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> + time make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} -C doc/src/sgml all INSTALL
> unrelated pet peeve: "make -C doc/src/sgml all" doesn't build all docs
> targets..
Well, building the PDF takes a *long* time and is rarely required. I think
there's an
On 2023-12-21 08:44:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:28:56PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > + time make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} -C doc/src/sgml all INSTALL
> > unrelated pet peeve: "make -C doc/src/sgml all" doesn't build all docs
> > targets..
>
> That seems rel
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:28:56PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> + time make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} -C doc/src/sgml all INSTALL
> unrelated pet peeve: "make -C doc/src/sgml all" doesn't build all docs
> targets..
That seems relevant in terms of coverage. Why not just moving the
INSTALL bit
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:36:28AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> We fairly regularly have commits breaking the generation of INSTALL. IIRC we
>> recently discussed building it locally unconditionally, but I couldn't
>> immediately find that discussion. Until then, I think we s
Andres Freund writes:
> We fairly regularly have commits breaking the generation of INSTALL. IIRC we
> recently discussed building it locally unconditionally, but I couldn't
> immediately find that discussion. Until then, I think we should at least
> build it in CI so that cfbot can warn.
I thou
> On 20 Dec 2023, at 15:15, Andres Freund wrote:
> The attached patch had a slight bug. Also turned out that the CI environment
> didn't have pandoc installed. Fixed that.
LGTM.
+ time make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} -C doc/src/sgml all INSTALL
unrelated pet peeve: "make -C doc/src/sgml all" doesn
Hi,
The attached patch had a slight bug. Also turned out that the CI environment
didn't have pandoc installed. Fixed that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
>From 6a8157b2f14327351798c805a873e9e910f5cd67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andres Freund
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 03:44:44 -0800
Subject: [PATCH v
Hi,
We fairly regularly have commits breaking the generation of INSTALL. IIRC we
recently discussed building it locally unconditionally, but I couldn't
immediately find that discussion. Until then, I think we should at least
build it in CI so that cfbot can warn.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
>From
17 matches
Mail list logo
