Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-06-10 Thread Tom Lane
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
 /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
 something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
 it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...

We are snakebit today, for certain :-(.  The repackaged main tarball has
the right files, but there is something wrong with the built HTML docs
(doc/postgres.tar.gz).  It is only 36K and seems to contain just

-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel   26163 2004-03-04 19:35 catalogs.gif
-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel9485 2004-03-04 19:35 connections.gif
-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel1151 2002-10-12 12:33 stylesheet.css

In the previous wrap it was 950K ...

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-05 Thread Mark Gibson
Tom Lane wrote:

Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 

Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible.  7.3.7 or 
7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper 
bag release (like 6.4.1 was).
   

There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
need to change the version number.
The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
shouldn't have happened in the first place ...
			regards, tom lane
 

How about in future, packaging it all up as a release candidate,
(ie. 7.4.2-rc1) for a week or so before official final release,
so package maintainers can build their scripts etc,
and small problems like this ironed out.
If anything needs to be corrected, it can be repackaged with a
bumped rc number until it is determined that everything is fine.
At which point the latest rc is renamed as the final release
(ie. 7.4.2).
Unless you already do this, and I've completely missed it somehow
--
Mark Gibson gibsonm |AT| cromwell |DOT| co |DOT| uk
Web Developer  Database Admin
Cromwell Tools Ltd.
Leicester, England.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-05 Thread Lamar Owen
On Friday 05 March 2004 09:50 am, Mark Gibson wrote:
 How about in future, packaging it all up as a release candidate,
 (ie. 7.4.2-rc1) for a week or so before official final release,

We do this already for major versions.  Maybe we should consider this for 
minors too.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-05 Thread Steve Crawford
On Thursday 04 March 2004 7:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
 Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible. 
  7.3.7 or 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let
  7.3.6 be a brown paper bag release (like 6.4.1 was).

 There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no
 real need to change the version number.

I have to agree with Lamar et. al. The _code_ may not have changed but 
the product did and the version number should reflect that.

This issue was discussed in InfoWorld a couple years back. I don't 
recall reading a single comment from someone who felt this practice 
benefitted them but there were plenty of tales of pain an frustration 
caused by even seemingly small changes between versions.

Perhaps the fourth digit could represent non-code related updates such 
as documentation and packaging fixes.

Cheers,
Steve


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-05 Thread David Garamond
Steve Crawford wrote:
Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible. 
7.3.7 or 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let
7.3.6 be a brown paper bag release (like 6.4.1 was).
There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no
real need to change the version number.
I have to agree with Lamar et. al. The _code_ may not have changed but 
the product did and the version number should reflect that.
I second this. As someone has said, we should probably use the -rc 
mechanism in the future (changing the versioning from 7.3.6 into 7.3.6.1 
has a greater chance of breaking things). Allow at least one week before 
the final -rc turns into final. The last -rc will be byte-to-byte 
identical with the final, we just rename it. *If* the final turns out to 
contain some stupid mistake, we'll just have to make 7.3.7...

Once something is released, it should not change at all.

--
dave
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Marc G. Fournier

Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
/pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...


On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

 It looks to me like there are now *two* copies of the built manpages in
 the 7.3.6 tarball, as well as some extraneous .md5 files:

 Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man-7.3.tar.gz
 Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man.tar.gz
 Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: postgres.tar.gz
 Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-base-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
 Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-docs-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
 Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-opt-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
 Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-test-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5

 Not sure if it's worth trying again.  The embedded md5 files are wrong
 (they correspond to the Mar 1 wrap) and so could confuse people, and the
 extra manpage set is adding 150K to the tarball size.

   regards, tom lane



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Yahoo!: yscrappy  ICQ: 7615664

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

   http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Marc G. Fournier

k, trying again and trapping all the configure/make output, but other then
putting the files in the _1 directory, the script i the same ...

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
  /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
  something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
  it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...

 We are snakebit today, for certain :-(.  The repackaged main tarball has
 the right files, but there is something wrong with the built HTML docs
 (doc/postgres.tar.gz).  It is only 36K and seems to contain just

 -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel   26163 2004-03-04 19:35 catalogs.gif
 -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel9485 2004-03-04 19:35 connections.gif
 -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel1151 2002-10-12 12:33 stylesheet.css

 In the previous wrap it was 950K ...

   regards, tom lane



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Yahoo!: yscrappy  ICQ: 7615664

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Marc G. Fournier

don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good:

svr1# tar tvzpf postgresql-7.3.6.tar.gz | grep postgres.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel  954585 Mar  4 21:33 2004 postgresql-7.3.6/doc/postgres.tar.gz
svr1# tar tvypf postgresql-7.3.6.tar.bz2 | grep postgres.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel  954585 Mar  4 21:33 2004 postgresql-7.3.6/doc/postgres.tar.gz


On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
  /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
  something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
  it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...

 We are snakebit today, for certain :-(.  The repackaged main tarball has
 the right files, but there is something wrong with the built HTML docs
 (doc/postgres.tar.gz).  It is only 36K and seems to contain just

 -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel   26163 2004-03-04 19:35 catalogs.gif
 -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel9485 2004-03-04 19:35 connections.gif
 -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel1151 2002-10-12 12:33 stylesheet.css

 In the previous wrap it was 950K ...

   regards, tom lane



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Yahoo!: yscrappy  ICQ: 7615664

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
  joining column's datatypes do not match


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Tom Lane
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good:

It looks good to me too, at least the main tar.gz seems correct.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
  joining column's datatypes do not match


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Marc G. Fournier

'k, replaced with the good ones ...

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good:

 It looks good to me too, at least the main tar.gz seems correct.

   regards, tom lane



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Yahoo!: yscrappy  ICQ: 7615664

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Lamar Owen
On Thursday 04 March 2004 07:45 pm, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
 Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
 /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
 something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
 it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...

Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible.  7.3.7 or 
7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper 
bag release (like 6.4.1 was).
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Tom Lane
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible.  7.3.7 or 
 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper 
 bag release (like 6.4.1 was).

There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
need to change the version number.

The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
shouldn't have happened in the first place ...

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Lamar Owen
On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
 There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
 need to change the version number.

 The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
 to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
 shouldn't have happened in the first place ...

There are now multiple copies of 7.3.6 out there.  How is a body to know which 
one to use?  On RPMs, as you well now, SOP is to increment the release on any 
change, including a typo.  This way there is no ambiguity.

This is not the first time tarballs have been streamlined.  I'm glad I hadn't 
built any RPMs yet.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lamar Owen wrote:
 On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
  There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
  need to change the version number.
 
  The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
  to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
  shouldn't have happened in the first place ...
 
 There are now multiple copies of 7.3.6 out there.  How is a body to know which 
 one to use?  On RPMs, as you well now, SOP is to increment the release on any 
 change, including a typo.  This way there is no ambiguity.
 
 This is not the first time tarballs have been streamlined.  I'm glad I hadn't 
 built any RPMs yet.

My guess is that the packaging scripts are adjusted for new releases,
but then don't work perfectly for older ones.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian|  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive, |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.|  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
 On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
  There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
  need to change the version number.
 
  The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
  to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
  shouldn't have happened in the first place ...
 
 There are now multiple copies of 7.3.6 out there.  How is a body to know which 
 one to use?  On RPMs, as you well now, SOP is to increment the release on any 
 change, including a typo.  This way there is no ambiguity.
 
 This is not the first time tarballs have been streamlined.  I'm glad I hadn't 
 built any RPMs yet.

Sigh. I'm very uncomfortable with the existence of two versions of
7.3.6. Also the fact that I cannot get the right tar ball till it is
copied to mirrors makes me uncomfortable too.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])


[HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Tom Lane
It looks to me like there are now *two* copies of the built manpages in
the 7.3.6 tarball, as well as some extraneous .md5 files:

Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man-7.3.tar.gz
Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man.tar.gz
Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: postgres.tar.gz
Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-base-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-docs-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-opt-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-test-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5

Not sure if it's worth trying again.  The embedded md5 files are wrong
(they correspond to the Mar 1 wrap) and so could confuse people, and the
extra manpage set is adding 150K to the tarball size.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend