Oleg Bartunov writes:
> I and Teodor have several small, but useful patches for text search:
> ...
> We would like to have your opinion what to do with these patches - leave them
> for 8.5 or provide them to hackers to review for 8.4.
I think the general consensus is that these were submitted to
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > OK, I am all wet. I now understand why the editing is the
>> > time-consuming part of this job. On the plus side it is probably
>> > possible to parallelize it to some degree by splitting the lis
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> At this point I think we are just trying to get a list of items that
>> need to be done before we can release beta. Very little, if anything,
>> should be getting added to that list at this point.
>
> You can say that, but things are going
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Robert Haas writes:
> >> > OK, I am all wet. ?I now understand why the editing is the
> >> > time-consuming part of this job. ?On the plus side it is probably
> >> > possible to parallelize it to s
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Josh Berkus wrote:
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> > In any case, the release notes aren't normally a bottleneck. ?I still
>> >> > think that Bruce had his priorities ou
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> At this point I think we are just trying to get a list of items that
> >> need to be done before we can release beta. ?Very little, if anything,
> >> should be getting added to that list at this point.
> >
> > You can
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> > In any case, the release notes aren't normally a bottleneck. ?I still
> >> > think that Bruce had his priorities out of whack in not cleaning up
> >> > his open-items list before
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> > In any case, the release notes aren't normally a bottleneck. ?I still
> >> > think that Bruce had his priorities out of whack in not cleaning up
> >> > his open-items list before
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> > In any case, the release notes aren't normally a bottleneck. I still
>> > think that Bruce had his priorities out of whack in not cleaning up
>> > his open-items list before doing this. If he had done so,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> > Yes, although Bruce *has* asked for help in cleaning up the open-items list.
>
> I spent several hours on that on Saturday, and more or less got the bird
> in response... the way Bruce has that page set up, only he can do any
> actual item removal, the re
Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> > In any case, the release notes aren't normally a bottleneck. I still
> > think that Bruce had his priorities out of whack in not cleaning up
> > his open-items list before doing this. If he had done so, nobody
> > would have noticed how long the notes took.
>
> Y
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > OK, I am all wet. I now understand why the editing is the
> > time-consuming part of this job. On the plus side it is probably
> > possible to parallelize it to some degree by splitting the list into N
> > pieces after the "remove insignificant items" st
Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, I am all wet. I now understand why the editing is the
> time-consuming part of this job. On the plus side it is probably
> possible to parallelize it to some degree by splitting the list into N
> pieces after the "remove insignificant items" step.
>
> With respect to thi
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 23:17:41 Robert Haas wrote:
> With respect to this item:
> Disable appending of the epoch date/time when '%' escapes are missing
> in log_filename (Robert Haas)
> I might suggest explaining it this way:
> This change makes it easier to use PostgreSQL in conjunction with a
Josh Berkus writes:
> Yes, although Bruce *has* asked for help in cleaning up the open-items list.
I spent several hours on that on Saturday, and more or less got the bird
in response... the way Bruce has that page set up, only he can do any
actual item removal, the rest of us can only comment.
All,
In any case, the release notes aren't normally a bottleneck. I still
think that Bruce had his priorities out of whack in not cleaning up
his open-items list before doing this. If he had done so, nobody
would have noticed how long the notes took.
Yes, although Bruce *has* asked for help
Robert Haas writes:
> OK, I am all wet. I now understand why the editing is the
> time-consuming part of this job. On the plus side it is probably
> possible to parallelize it to some degree by splitting the list into N
> pieces after the "remove insignificant items" step.
The advantage of havi
OK, I am all wet. I now understand why the editing is the
time-consuming part of this job. On the plus side it is probably
possible to parallelize it to some degree by splitting the list into N
pieces after the "remove insignificant items" step.
With respect to this item:
Disable appending of th
David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > So far taking the CVS logs and making a list of only the items we want
> > for the release notes took one day; researching and rewording the
> > items
> > so they are ready for the release notes took five days; g
On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
So far taking the CVS logs and making a list of only the items we want
for the release notes took one day; researching and rewording the
items
so they are ready for the release notes took five days; grouping them
into sections and rewording/
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
> >> Robert, ?this has been discussed many times before, and most people agree
> >> with
> >> you, but Bruce doesn't. I think the ony way this will change is if someone
> >> takes on the role of "release notes manage
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
>> Robert, this has been discussed many times before, and most people agree
>> with
>> you, but Bruce doesn't. I think the ony way this will change is if someone
>> takes on the role of "release notes manager", subscrbes to pgsql-commits,
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 12:02 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 09:04:12 Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > My concern with the list of outstanding items for 8.4 based on a quick
> > look is that I think
On Saturday 21 March 2009 09:04:12 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> My concern with the list of outstanding items for 8.4 based on a quick
> look is that I think many of those things are not, in fact,
> outstanding items for 8.4,
Robert Haas wrote:
> Oh, I'm not objecting to email as a way of communicating. I think a
> bug tracking system or web forums would increase the amount of effort
> required to keep up to date on what is going on, and I can't imagine
> what the corresponding advantage would be. What I don't like is
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I personally think that the way pgsql-hackers organizes itself using
>> email is completely insane. The only reason that you need to write
>> the release notes instead of, say, me, is because the only information
>> on
Robert Haas wrote:
> I personally think that the way pgsql-hackers organizes itself using
> email is completely insane. The only reason that you need to write
> the release notes instead of, say, me, is because the only information
> on what needs to go into them is buried in a thicket of CVS comm
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian escribi?:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > Note that during the 8.4 timeframe we've stolen a lot of work from
> > > Bruce. The TODO list was moved to the wiki, for one; the "patch queue"
> > > was also moved to the wiki. Now the FAQ has moved to wiki (and h
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> I don't even understand why we're interested in doing this. If the
>> patches weren't important enough for someone to add them to the
>> CommitFest wiki in October, why are we delaying the release to hunt
>> for the
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 16:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >> > You can use my emails to make a mas
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 16:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > You can use my emails to make a master list --- there is no need to make
> >> > mine the master.
>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > You can use my emails to make a master list --- there is no need to make
>> > mine the master.
>>
>> OK, good enough. Can you post a link to the raw mbox file?
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > You can use my emails to make a master list --- there is no need to make
> > mine the master.
>
> OK, good enough. Can you post a link to the raw mbox file?
OK, done:
http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgsql/open
--
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> You can use my emails to make a master list --- there is no need to make
> mine the master.
OK, good enough. Can you post a link to the raw mbox file?
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To mak
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I did offer to post my mbox file so people could see what I have as open
> > 8.4 items, but the "no complaining" requirement seems to have eliminated
> > volunteers.
>
> IIRC, the biggest problem we had last time (apar
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I did offer to post my mbox file so people could see what I have as open
> 8.4 items, but the "no complaining" requirement seems to have eliminated
> volunteers.
IIRC, the biggest problem we had last time (apart from the
complaining) was tha
Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Of course, if this list is radically incomplete, then it doesn't help
> >> much, but does anyone think that's the case?
> >
> > We don't know -- Bruce's list may contain something, but since it's
> > hidden we can't do anything. ?Maybe it is all already-completed items,
> >
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > Robert Haas escribió:
>> >> I don't even understand why we're interested in doing this. If the
>> >> patches weren't important enough for someone to ad
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Robert Haas escribió:
> >> I don't even understand why we're interested in doing this. If the
> >> patches weren't important enough for someone to add them to the
> >> CommitFest wiki in October, why are we delay
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> This is about the reaction I expected, and is again so far off the mark
> that I will just continue doing what I think is best.
Would you like to explain WHY it's off the mark?
> Why doesn't someone offer to take my mbox file and generate a
Robert Haas escribió:
> I don't even understand why we're interested in doing this. If the
> patches weren't important enough for someone to add them to the
> CommitFest wiki in October, why are we delaying the release to hunt
> for them in March?
The problem is not patches that were not committ
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> I personally think that the way pgsql-hackers organizes itself using
>> email is completely insane.
> Note that during the 8.4 timeframe we've stolen a lot of work from
> Bruce. The TODO list was moved to the wiki, for one; the "patch queu
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> The TODO list is already on the Wiki. I've edited it a few times when I've
> spotted TODO-worthy ideas on the mailing lists.
Well, Bruce and Tom both made reference to something that Bruce was
going to produce along these lines... I th
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian escribi?:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian escribi?:
>
> > > > > We do have an alternative "open items" list,
> > > > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items
> > > > > However, it's incomplete. It is a bit sad that nobody can
Bruce Momjian escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian escribi?:
> > > > We do have an alternative "open items" list,
> > > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items
> > > > However, it's incomplete. It is a bit sad that nobody can complete it,
> > > > because Bruce h
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian escribi?:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > Note that during the 8.4 timeframe we've stolen a lot of work from
> > > Bruce. The TODO list was moved to the wiki, for one; the "patch queue"
> > > was also moved to the wiki. Now the FAQ has moved to wiki (and h
Bruce Momjian escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Note that during the 8.4 timeframe we've stolen a lot of work from
> > Bruce. The TODO list was moved to the wiki, for one; the "patch queue"
> > was also moved to the wiki. Now the FAQ has moved to wiki (and has
> > already seen lots of improv
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas escribi?:
>
> > I personally think that the way pgsql-hackers organizes itself using
> > email is completely insane.
>
> Note that during the 8.4 timeframe we've stolen a lot of work from
> Bruce. The TODO list was moved to the wiki, for one; the "patch queue"
This is about the reaction I expected, and is again so far off the mark
that I will just continue doing what I think is best.
Why doesn't someone offer to take my mbox file and generate a list from
that?
---
Robert Haas wro
Robert Haas escribió:
> I personally think that the way pgsql-hackers organizes itself using
> email is completely insane.
Note that during the 8.4 timeframe we've stolen a lot of work from
Bruce. The TODO list was moved to the wiki, for one; the "patch queue"
was also moved to the wiki. Now th
Robert Haas wrote:
Similarly, the only reason we don't have a workable TODO list is
because you're attempting to extract it from a disorganized jumble of
email after the fact, instead of maintaining it publicly and adding
and removing items along the way. It might be slightly more work to
think
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 09:38:59 Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > You are assuming that only commit-fest work is required to get us to
>> > beta. You might remember the long list of open items I faced in January
>> > that I
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> ... Perhaps we
>> need to take a fresh look at your list of twenty things and see what can be
>> delegated out to others.
> Yep, I agree. The problem is that last time I put out a list that
> wasn't clensed I got a lot of compaints so I am only g
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 09:38:59AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Well, we have been working on stuff for the past month so it was not
> > > like we were waiting on SE-PG to move forward.
> >
> > Stuff related to the CommitFest?
> >
> > AFAICS, the only committer who has d
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 09:38:59 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > You are assuming that only commit-fest work is required to get us to
> > beta. You might remember the long list of open items I faced in January
> > that I have whittled down, but I still have about twenty left.
> >
>
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 09:38:59 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> You are assuming that only commit-fest work is required to get us to
> beta. You might remember the long list of open items I faced in January
> that I have whittled down, but I still have about twenty left.
>
I think part of the perception
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 18:00:57 Robert Haas wrote:
> Basically, for the project to grow, it needs more committers, and the
> precondition for being added as a committer should be a promise to
> spend a certain amount of time reviewing and committing patches other
> than your own. According to th
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > You are assuming that only commit-fest work is required to get us to
>> > beta. ?You might remember the long list of open items I faced in January
>> > that I have whittled down, but I still have about twenty left.
>>
It's not like my opinion has any weight but still,
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 16:15:21 Robert Haas wrote:
> either make the release happen on time, or we can get all of the
> patches reviewed, but we can only do both if the committers have the
> time and energy to make that happen. Do you disagree?
Robert Haas wrote:
> > You are assuming that only commit-fest work is required to get us to
> > beta. ?You might remember the long list of open items I faced in January
> > that I have whittled down, but I still have about twenty left.
> >
> > Tom has done work fixing optimizer bugs introduced in 8
> You are assuming that only commit-fest work is required to get us to
> beta. You might remember the long list of open items I faced in January
> that I have whittled down, but I still have about twenty left.
>
> Tom has done work fixing optimizer bugs introduced in 8.4. I have had
> EnterpriseD
Robert Haas wrote:
> > Well, we have been working on stuff for the past month so it was not
> > like we were waiting on SE-PG to move forward.
>
> Stuff related to the CommitFest?
>
> AFAICS, the only committer who has done any significant review or
> committing of patches in the last month is He
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>> > The earlier commitfests were not time-limited either. They lasted until all
>> > the patches were dealt with; either committed or bumped to next commit
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> The original plan was that anything not 100% ready to commit at the
> beginning of the last commit fest will be bumped to the next release,
> and beta would start right after the first commit fest, a week or two
> after the submission deadline. We failed to enforce
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > The earlier commitfests were not time-limited either. They lasted until all
> > the patches were dealt with; either committed or bumped to next commit fest.
> > It's just that when you know there still at least o
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> The earlier commitfests were not time-limited either. They lasted until all
> the patches were dealt with; either committed or bumped to next commit fest.
> It's just that when you know there still at least one more commitfest a
> couple
Hi,
Le 16 mars 09 à 21:41, Tom Lane a écrit :
Gregory Stark writes:
I think it's clear that stretching feature freezes is a failed
policy.
A saner policy would mandate that large patches land near the start of
a development cycle, but I don't know how we get people to do that.
I think Ope
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Mar 16, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
A saner policy would mandate that large patches land near the start of
a development cycle, but I don't know how we get people to do that.
I think that if you can strictly time-limit the final CommitFest in the
same way tha
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark writes:
> > I think it's clear that stretching feature freezes is a failed
> > policy.
>
> Yeah, it's the same old same old --- once again, we've bent over
> backwards to try to accommodate large patches at the end of a
> d
On Mar 16, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
A saner policy would mandate that large patches land near the start of
a development cycle, but I don't know how we get people to do that.
I think that if you can strictly time-limit the final CommitFest in
the same way that you time-limit the oth
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure that that's ever going to stop,
> because every time there are people cheerleading for said patches
> and insisting that the release will be so much better if we wait
> for them.
Well 8.3 was better for having HOT. But I still feel
Gregory Stark writes:
> I think it's clear that stretching feature freezes is a failed policy.
Yeah, it's the same old same old --- once again, we've bent over
backwards to try to accommodate large patches at the end of a
development cycle. I'm not sure that that's ever going to stop,
because ev
Oleg Bartunov writes:
> We would like to have your opinion what to do with these patches - leave them
> for 8.5 or provide them to hackers to review for 8.4.
In theory 8.5, though you wouldn't be the first to start sneaking in late
commits and given how long before the release I can't really th
Hi there,
I and Teodor have several small, but useful patches for text search:
1. Support of filtering dictionaries and unaccent dictionary/function.
This is often requested feature, which solves, for example,
problem with correct headlines for text with accents.
See example and docs ht
74 matches
Mail list logo
