Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 1 May 2015 at 18:05, Simon Riggs wrote: > * TABLESAMPLE clause >> Doesn't seem very far from being done. Some questions about including >> (or not) DDL and contrib modules seem to remain. >> > > Will commit this soon > OK, completely happy with this now and will commit today. It's fina

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 2015-05-01 18:37:23 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > * Multivariate statistics > This is not intended to be committed this CF. > => I'd like to mark this as returned with (little) feedback. > > * Avoiding plan disasters with LIMIT > I'm not enthused by the approach, it's disabled by default t

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > We really need to segregate the two.. By that what I mean is this: I > > want an "always-open" "bugfix" CF, which allows us to keep track of > > bugfix patches. Having something about

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > We really need to segregate the two.. By that what I mean is this: I > want an "always-open" "bugfix" CF, which allows us to keep track of > bugfix patches. Having something about "applies to versions X, Y, Z" > would be nice too... > > /me

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

2015-05-02 1:37 GMT+09:00 Andres Freund : > * ctidscan as an example of custom-scan > Hasn't really gotten sufficient review. > => Move > I have to agree. > * Join pushdown support for foreign tables > Hasn't gotten particularly much review yet. And it doesn't look > entirely ready to me o

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-04-30 08:39:45 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > If you have spare cycles, there are a number of relevant patches still > > open in the commit fest. > > I was wondering what the actual state of the commitfest is. I'm thus > going t

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Also as I've pointed out, it's not even clear that there is a regression > at all, since I've already shown that changes of several percent in > timings of sort operations can be caused by irrelevant noise factors. > To actually show a perform

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

> "Andres" == Andres Freund writes: Andres> * Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts Andres> Unfortunately the discussion about potential performance Andres> regression has been largely sidestepped by bickering over Andres> minutiae. Andres> => ? There isn't a "potential perfor

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 01/05/15 18:37, Andres Freund wrote: I was wondering what the actual state of the commitfest is. I'm thus going through all the open items. Here's my thoughts: Cool. * Sequence Access Method There's been some back and forth between Petr and Heikki on this lately. => Maybe there's

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

Stephen Frost wrote: > Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: >> * Allow "snapshot too old" error, to prevent bloat >> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1361166406.1897609.1424371443904.JavaMail.yahoo%40mail.yahoo.com >> talked about a new version that afaics never materialized >> =>

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

- Original Message - From: Stephen Frost To: Andres Freund Cc: Peter Eisentraut ; pgsql-hackers Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2015-04-30 08:39:45 -0400, Pe

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2015-04-30 08:39:45 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > If you have spare cycles, there are a number of relevant patches still > > open in the commit fest. > > I was wondering what the actual state of the commitfest is. I'm thus > going thro

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 2015-05-01 09:49:50 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > * Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts > > Unfortunately the discussion about potential performance regression > > has been largely sidestepped by bickering over minutiae. > > =

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 2015-05-01 13:05:19 -0400, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 1 May 2015 at 12:37, Andres Freund wrote: > > * fastbloat > > Not too big, I think it should be easy to commit this. > > => Keep in 'ready for committer' > > > > Will commit soon Cool. > > * Allow "snapshot too old" error, to prevent bl

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 1 May 2015 at 12:37, Andres Freund wrote: > * fastbloat > Not too big, I think it should be easy to commit this. > => Keep in 'ready for committer' > Will commit soon > * Turning off HOT for larger SQL queries > Seems to have degenerated into a discussion of not really related > th

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > * Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts > Unfortunately the discussion about potential performance regression > has been largely sidestepped by bickering over minutiae. > => ? There really is no discussion about performance regression

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 2015-04-30 08:39:45 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > If you have spare cycles, there are a number of relevant patches still > open in the commit fest. I was wondering what the actual state of the commitfest is. I'm thus going through all the open items. Here's my thoughts: * fsync $PGDATA rec

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 4/30/15 12:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> So generally we have stamped in late April or early May and released >>> in September, but last year we didn't release until December. I >

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/30/15 12:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> So generally we have stamped in late April or early May and released >> in September, but last year we didn't release until December. I >> assume that if we stamp beta1 in June instead of May, t

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 4/30/15 12:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > So generally we have stamped in late April or early May and released > in September, but last year we didn't release until December. I > assume that if we stamp beta1 in June instead of May, that's going to > somewhat delay the final release as well, but I

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The schedule > > calls for beta in June. In light of that, the core team has agreed to > call for > > feature freeze on May 15 > > That means that all patche

[HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

The schedule calls for beta in June. In light of that, the core team has agreed to call for feature freeze on May 15 That means that all patches that add or change features should be committed by then. If you have

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Just throwing out a crazy idea. What if we had a commitfest as > > scheduled at the start of May but made it a Tom-free commitfest. > > Specifically to try to organize a larger work-force rather than to > > leave it all on Tom's should

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Better tools would be good, but unless someone commits to producing > > a tool that will be ready by June but not by May, that's not a good > > reason to slide either. > > Fine with me --- I just wanted to give T

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just throwing out a crazy idea. What if we had a commitfest as scheduled at > the start of May but made it a Tom-free commitfest. Specifically to try to > organize a larger work-force rather than to leave it all on Tom's shoulders. > Not that your efforts

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people some time > >> off? And some time to improve the tools? > > > Agreed. > > I don't agree, not even a little bit. The reason this fest has been

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people some time >> off? And some time to improve the tools? > Agreed. I don't agree, not even a little bit. The reason this fest has been so long and painful is that the

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people some time >> off? And some time to improve the tools? > > I would rather do the commit fests often, to keep the patch queue and the > commit fests short. Just

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

Chris Browne wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Heikki Linnakangas) writes: Josh Berkus wrote: Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people some time off? And some time to improve the tools? I would rather do the commit fests often, to keep the patch queue and the c

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Heikki Linnakangas) writes: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people some >> time off? And some time to improve the tools? > > I would rather do the commit fests often, to keep the patch queue and > the commit fests short. But if i

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

Josh Berkus wrote: Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people some time off? And some time to improve the tools? I would rather do the commit fests often, to keep the patch queue and the commit fests short. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprised

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:31:51 -0400 (EDT) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people > > some time off? And some time to improve the tools? > > Agreed. > +1 Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.comma

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > We are down to 12 feature freeze items (240 emails): > > > > http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches > > > > Most are not ready to apply but require feedback to the author. > > Yaaay! > > Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people some time

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze status

Bruce, > We are down to 12 feature freeze items (240 emails): > > http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches > > Most are not ready to apply but require feedback to the author. Yaaay! Maybe we should make the next commit-fest June 1 to give people some time off? And some time to improve the too

[HACKERS] Feature freeze status

We are down to 12 feature freeze items (240 emails): http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches Most are not ready to apply but require feedback to the author. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze Date for Next Release

Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> Can I ask when the Feature Freeze for next release will be? > Also, from http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/faq > "Q: When will 8.4 come out? >A: Historically, PostgreSQL has released approximately > every 12 months and

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze Date for Next Release

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:56:48 -0800 Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > Can I ask when the Feature Freeze for next release will be? > > Also, from http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/faq > > "Q: When will 8.4 come out? >A: Historically, PostgreSQL has released a

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze Date for Next Release

Simon Riggs wrote: > Can I ask when the Feature Freeze for next release will be? Also, from http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/faq "Q: When will 8.4 come out? A: Historically, PostgreSQL has released approximately every 12 months and there is no desire in the community to cha

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze Date for Next Release

Wouldn't seeing which patches are trickling in during the first months of 8.4 development give a better indication of when it should be freezable? I'm all in favor of having lots of advance notice and predictable schedules --- but it seems in the next month or so we'll have a lot more insight of

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze Date for Next Release

On Feb 5, 2008 8:57 PM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can I ask when the Feature Freeze for next release will be? I shall be posting on this topic in the next day or so. /D ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

[HACKERS] Feature Freeze Date for Next Release

Can I ask when the Feature Freeze for next release will be? Last time we discussed this the only date mentioned was end-March-2008, which is less than 2 months away now. We've long expressed the wish to move development onto a cycle that ends in the Spring, so next alternative would appear to be

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom, > This seems pretty entirely orthogonal to the commit-fest proposal. > I see no reason to think that snapshots taken at those times would > be any better than any other nightly snapshot, nor any reason > to memorialize them in an archive. I can see that. And it would be pretty hard to keep

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On 10/25/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh, I hadn't heard of that either. The Debian package patchutils says it was > downloaded from: > > http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/patchutils > > What's really cool is that patchutils also appears to have the utility I've > been looking for for

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Brendan Jurd wrote: On 10/24/07, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brendan Jurd escribió: Really? I just started playing around with git, and the output from git diff produced the same kind of diff file I would normally get from `svn di` ... which is a unified diff. or `cvs di -c`.

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:18:42PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:32:13PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:39:43PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > > > The one below is already available, so we don't have to

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:32:13PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:39:43PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > > The one below is already available, so we don't have to do a "flag > > > day" with it. > > > > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreS

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071024 08:45]: > Aidan Van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071024 01:41]: > >> How up to date is the Git repos? Does it pull individual commits from > >> CVS, or does it resync the whole history periodically? If so, what's >

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You can use "filterdiff -v --format=context". > > Cool, I'll have to get a copy of that. Huh, I hadn't heard of that either. The Debian package patchutils says it was downloaded from: http://cyberelk.net/t

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom Lane wrote: > [ chewing on this a bit... ] The curious thing about that is that > despite this being designed to be a short release cycle, we ended up > landing a bunch of major patches that weren't on the radar screen at > all at the start of the cycle. This suggests to me that there's > som

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Anyway, is there anyone who thinks the "cycle the queue every 6 weeks or 2 > > months or suitable short period" is a *bad* idea? It might be hard to > > pull > > off, but we won't know until we try. > > It seems worth a try --- we

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm fairly resistant to putting less-than-ready code in the tree, I must > > say. > > Me too, at least if "less than ready" means "unstable". The committed > code has to always be solid enough to let everybody continue working on >

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Marko Kreen wrote: > On 10/24/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one > > > obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff > > > format as only one accepted. > > > > Well,

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You can use "filterdiff -v --format=context". Cool, I'll have to get a copy of that. > Because it's easy to convert from one to another, I think the unified > vs. context diff issue is a non-issue. Fair enough then; we should just change the polic

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:32:13PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:39:43PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > The one below is already available, so we don't have to do a "flag > > day" with it. > > > > http://repo.or.cz/

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I don't recall that we've rejected any patches lately just because they >>> were unidiffs. But I'd be sad if a large fraction of incoming patches >>> started to be unidiff

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't recall that we've rejected any patches lately just because they >> were unidiffs. But I'd be sad if a large fraction of incoming patches >> started to be unidiffs. > We bounce them b

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Marko Kreen wrote: On 10/24/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff format as only one accepted. Well, that's not

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On 10/24/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one > > obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff > > format as only one accepted. > > Well, that's not a hard-and-fast rule,

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one >> obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff >> format as only one accepted. > > Well, that's not a hard-and-fast rule, just a prefe

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 14:32 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:39:43PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > The one below is already available, so we don't have to do a "flag > > day" with it. > > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git > > As someone who hasn't used GIT:

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I don't recall that we've rejected any patches lately just because they > were unidiffs. But I'd be sad if a large fraction of incoming patches > started to be unidiffs. We bounce them back to the author pretty m uch every time with "con

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

"Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one > obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff > format as only one accepted. Well, that's not a hard-and-fast rule, just a preference. At least for me, unidiff is vastly harde

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 19:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mind you, I'm in favor of one. A new SCM would make some other development > > tasks easier. However, I'm reluctant to open the can-of-worms which is the > > "what SCM should we use" discussion again

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:39:43PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: >> The one below is already available, so we don't have to do a "flag >> day" with it. >> >> http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git > > As someone who hasn't used GIT: if I have a modi

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Josh Berkus wrote: Folks, You are way ahead of us here. And my vote *still* goes to Mercurial, if we're picking SCMs. Will a new SCM actually make this easier, or are people just using it as an excuse? We use mercurial here at work, having switched to it recently, and while I

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 08:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > > I'm not picking a DSCM. I'm saying we already have tools in place for > > a DSCM *without* having a "flag day." If Mercurial has a similar > > migration/legacy support path, then by all means, let's try that out

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Aidan Van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071024 01:41]: >> How up to date is the Git repos? Does it pull individual commits from >> CVS, or does it resync the whole history periodically? If so, what's >> the lag? > It's updated hourly, which is the same rat

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:39:43PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > The one below is already available, so we don't have to do a "flag > day" with it. > > http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git As someone who hasn't used GIT: if I have a modified CVS tree from some time back (>1 year) can I use this to m

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

* Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071024 01:41]: > How up to date is the Git repos? Does it pull individual commits from > CVS, or does it resync the whole history periodically? If so, what's > the lag? It's updated hourly, which is the same rate the public CVS is updated. > An important pa

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On 10/24/07, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brendan Jurd escribió: > > Really? I just started playing around with git, and the output from > > git diff produced the same kind of diff file I would normally get from > > `svn di` > > ... which is a unified diff. > > > or `cvs di -c`. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Alvaro Herrera write: Marko Kreen escribió: As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff format as only one accepted. Both leading DSCMs - GIT and Mercurial do not support it. Hmm, in Subversion you can specify a se

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Brendan Jurd escribió: > > As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one > > obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff > > format as only one accepted. Both leading DSCMs - GIT and Mercurial > > do not support it. > > > > Really? I just started playing around wi

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

> As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one > obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff > format as only one accepted. Both leading DSCMs - GIT and Mercurial > do not support it. > Really? I just started playing around with git, and the output from git diff

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Marko Kreen escribió: > As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one > obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff > format as only one accepted. Both leading DSCMs - GIT and Mercurial > do not support it. Hmm, in Subversion you can specify a separate diff comman

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

David Fetter wrote: > I'm not picking a DSCM. I'm saying we already have tools in place for > a DSCM *without* having a "flag day." If Mercurial has a similar > migration/legacy support path, then by all means, let's try that out, > too. :) There's at least on Mercurial repo, here: http://www.

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On 10/24/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:04:34AM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote: > > On 10/24/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The main problem with using Git on a much larger scale is that there's > > > > still limited ability to use it o

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:04:34AM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote: > On 10/24/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The main problem with using Git on a much larger scale is that there's > > > still limited ability to use it on Win32. Google is working on that: > > > http://code.google.co

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On 10/24/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The main problem with using Git on a much larger scale is that there's > > still limited ability to use it on Win32. Google is working on that: > > http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/ but it's not quite there yet; there's > > also a partial

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On 10/24/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mind you, I'm in favor of one. A new SCM would make some other development > > tasks easier. However, I'm reluctant to open the can-of-worms which is the > > "what SCM should we use" discussion again, an

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

> The main problem with using Git on a much larger scale is that there's > still limited ability to use it on Win32. Google is working on that: > http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/ but it's not quite there yet; there's > also a partial MinGW port. IIRC the official word from the git people is

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 19:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Plus, for the developers and other people who really need to be > > bleeding-edge, this new plan would result in less-unstable snapshots every > > 2 months with defined feature sets which someone who

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 16:19 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Maybe. I'm looking for ways to increase the amount of development time > > we have compared with time releasing. If we release twice as often, we > > won't get twice the beta test contribution from everybody, so our code > > will be less ro

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 07:24:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mind you, I'm in favor of one. A new SCM would make some other > > development tasks easier. However, I'm reluctant to open the > > can-of-worms which is the "what SCM should we use" discussion

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On 10/24/07, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Make a converted copy of the existing CVS repository > 2) Keep the mirrored repo up to date with new commits > 3) Provide working guidelines so that developers can use the new VCS to > build local patches and improve their productivity > 4) Ge

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, David Fetter wrote: If Mercurial has a similar migration/legacy support path, then by all means, let's try that out, too. There's an import tool at http://hg.beekhof.net/hg/cvs-import but the experience of the Mozilla project suggests it's on the buggy and slow side for

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It might be worth applying a simple tag (but not a branch) at the end > (and maybe also at the start) of each checkpoint/fest/whatever Perhaps, though of course one could easily enough pull a CVS snapshot by date instead (especially if we stick to a pr

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom Lane wrote: Now to the extent that regular commit-fests keep patch development more closely aligned with the mainline CVS, the fest proposal might indirectly alleviate your pain. But I'd think that snaps taken *after* the fests would be the best for that, as they'd be closer to what any su

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we had milestone snapshots of each 2 months ... probably just before > each commit-fest ... and kept them available on ftp.postgresql.org until > official beta, then it would make it easier for testers to have a common > point of reference to work wit

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom, > Since there are always bugs, and we're certainly not going to schedule a > round of formal beta testing right after each commit-fest, I should > think that tarballs made right after a commit-fest would be particularly > unlikely to be good candidates for non-developer use. > > (Actually, it

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Plus, for the developers and other people who really need to be > bleeding-edge, this new plan would result in less-unstable snapshots every > 2 months with defined feature sets which someone who wanted to run them at > their own risk could. Which would

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mind you, I'm in favor of one. A new SCM would make some other development > tasks easier. However, I'm reluctant to open the can-of-worms which is the > "what SCM should we use" discussion again, and complicate something which > we seem to have consens

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Simon, > Maybe. I'm looking for ways to increase the amount of development time > we have compared with time releasing. If we release twice as often, we > won't get twice the beta test contribution from everybody, so our code > will be less robust, which will hurt us in the long run. I don't thin

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > We develop and commit like normal *until* the community feels there is > enough for release. Then we announce a feature freeze. I think you just described what will happen in reality regardless of whatever is decided to be an official "plan". :) I don't think that's n

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 09:28 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:29:58 -0400 > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'd suggest we have multiple checkpoints during the cycle. > > > Checkpoint is a "patch queue blitz" where we sto

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Folks, > You are way ahead of us here. And my vote *still* goes to Mercurial, if > we're picking SCMs. Will a new SCM actually make this easier, or are people just using it as an excuse? Mind you, I'm in favor of one. A new SCM would make some other development tasks easier. However, I'm relu

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:19:42PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:59:51PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes: > >>>Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> > I'd suggest we have multiple checkpoints dur

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom, > Personally I feel every six weeks would be too short: we'd be talking > only a month of work between commit-fests. I like a two-month cycle > partly because it wouldn't rotate relative to the calendar: we'd always > know that the first half of every odd-numbered month, or something like >

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

David Fetter wrote: On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:59:51PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes: Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'd suggest we have multiple checkpoints during the cycle. Checkpoint is a "patch queue blitz" where we stop developin

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Anyway, is there anyone who thinks the "cycle the queue every 6 weeks or 2 months or suitable short period" is a *bad* idea? It might be hard to pull off, but we won't know until we try. It seems worth a try --- we can certai

Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze date for 8.4

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm fairly resistant to putting less-than-ready code in the tree, I must say. Me too, at least if "less than ready" means "unstable". The committed code has to always be solid enough to let everybody continue working on thei

  1   2   3   4   >