Обсуждение: Versions RSS page is missing version(s)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 While looking into a failed check_postgres check, I found a problem with the canonical versions page here: http://www.postgresql.org/versions.rss It only goes back to 8.0, but as far as I know, 7.4 is not unsupported yet, so that page should be listing 7.4.27. Further, shouldn't we be keeping even 'unsupported' versions on this page, so (e.g. case of check_postgres.pl) clients can check if they have the latest revision, even if the major/minor combo is super old? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001290939 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkti8zIACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgaUgCfd83oRIVC8jSzgIRDxczXevXW T6YAoNazL0osoOt+RsWluFQ1htGFGJMc =2P9g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(adding pgsql-www, isn't this more a www question than a general postgresql usage question?) 2010/1/29 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>: > > > While looking into a failed check_postgres check, I found a problem > with the canonical versions page here: > > http://www.postgresql.org/versions.rss > > It only goes back to 8.0, but as far as I know, 7.4 is not unsupported Hmm. Seems 7.4 was removed by Dave when we released 8.4: https://pgweb.postgresql.org/changeset/2520 Dave, do you recall why? > yet, so that page should be listing 7.4.27. Further, shouldn't we be keeping > even 'unsupported' versions on this page, so (e.g. case of check_postgres.pl) > clients can check if they have the latest revision, even if the major/minor > combo is super old? No, I don't think we should. We should list supported versions only. And check_postgres could be advised to throw a warning at least if you're running an unsupported version ;) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Le 29/01/2010 15:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit : > (adding pgsql-www, isn't this more a www question than a general > postgresql usage question?) > > > 2010/1/29 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>: >> >> >> While looking into a failed check_postgres check, I found a problem >> with the canonical versions page here: >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/versions.rss >> >> It only goes back to 8.0, but as far as I know, 7.4 is not unsupported > > Hmm. Seems 7.4 was removed by Dave when we released 8.4: > > https://pgweb.postgresql.org/changeset/2520 > > > Dave, do you recall why? > Perhaps because you only display five releases in the "Latest Releases" part of the front page? which means 8.0 to 8.4. -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Le 29/01/2010 15:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit : >> (adding pgsql-www, isn't this more a www question than a general >> postgresql usage question?) >> >> >> 2010/1/29 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>: >>> >>> >>> While looking into a failed check_postgres check, I found a problem >>> with the canonical versions page here: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/versions.rss >>> >>> It only goes back to 8.0, but as far as I know, 7.4 is not unsupported >> >> Hmm. Seems 7.4 was removed by Dave when we released 8.4: >> >> https://pgweb.postgresql.org/changeset/2520 >> >> >> Dave, do you recall why? >> > > Perhaps because you only display five releases in the "Latest Releases" > part of the front page? which means 8.0 to 8.4. Yes. iirc, that was the reason. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:08 +0000, Dave Page wrote: > > Perhaps because you only display five releases in the "Latest > Releases" > > part of the front page? which means 8.0 to 8.4. > > Yes. iirc, that was the reason. Is it possible to add all (7.3+) versions to versions.rss, but show only top 5 versions? Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Вложения
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:49 +0200, Devrim GÃNDÃZ wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:08 +0000, Dave Page wrote: > > > Perhaps because you only display five releases in the "Latest > > Releases" > > > part of the front page? which means 8.0 to 8.4. > > > > Yes. iirc, that was the reason. > > Is it possible to add all (7.3+) versions to versions.rss, but show only > top 5 versions? 7.3 is not supported. It would be 7.4+ and even that, we need to put that under a different category... Something like: Old versions you shouldn't use: 8.0 7.4 Joshua D. Drake > > Regards, -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:44 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Is it possible to add all (7.3+) versions to versions.rss, but show > only > > top 5 versions? > > 7.3 is not supported. I know. But it would be a chance to remind people to upgrade their installations. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Вложения
2010/1/29 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:08 +0000, Dave Page wrote: >> > Perhaps because you only display five releases in the "Latest >> Releases" >> > part of the front page? which means 8.0 to 8.4. >> >> Yes. iirc, that was the reason. > > Is it possible to add all (7.3+) versions to versions.rss, but show only > top 5 versions? We certainly don't want 7.3 in there - that's not supported at all. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 18:50 +0200, Devrim GÃNDÃZ wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:44 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Is it possible to add all (7.3+) versions to versions.rss, but show > > only > > > top 5 versions? > > > > 7.3 is not supported. > > I know. But it would be a chance to remind people to upgrade their > installations. An arbitrary listing won't do that. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 >> yet, so that page should be listing 7.4.27. Further, shouldn't we be keeping >> even 'unsupported' versions on this page, so (e.g. case of check_postgres.pl) >> clients can check if they have the latest revision, even if the major/minor >> combo is super old? > No, I don't think we should. We should list supported versions only. > And check_postgres could be advised to throw a warning at least if > you're running an unsupported version ;) I'm not sure how useful that is. Surely while we encourage people to run a recent major version, we also want to encourage people who will not or cannot upgrade to at least be running the latest revision of a branch, no matter how old it is? How about a compromise? We add a new field to that XML so we can state that it is unsupported, but leave it in there. That way, programs such as check_postgres can not only distinguish between old but valid versions and invalid versions (e.g. "7.typo.oops") but can act in a more intelligent way for unsupported versions. Heck, maybe an estimated end-of-life date field for all versions as well? Either way, please add 7.4 back in. :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001291229 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAktjHAoACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgCVQCguBaAiZQLoH9Q5nE4UEDymyp0 SQcAn1pf1rgEKDH6LrmmngBPtxketfA0 =XJcP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:49 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:08 +0000, Dave Page wrote: > > > Perhaps because you only display five releases in the "Latest > > Releases" > > > part of the front page? which means 8.0 to 8.4. > > > > Yes. iirc, that was the reason. > > Is it possible to add all (7.3+) versions to versions.rss, but show only > top 5 versions? 7.3 is not supported. It would be 7.4+ and even that, we need to put that under a different category... Something like: Old versions you shouldn't use: 8.0 7.4 Joshua D. Drake > > Regards, -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:25 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > I know. But it would be a chance to remind people to upgrade their > > installations. > > An arbitrary listing won't do that. Depends. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Вложения
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 18:50 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:44 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Is it possible to add all (7.3+) versions to versions.rss, but show > > only > > > top 5 versions? > > > > 7.3 is not supported. > > I know. But it would be a chance to remind people to upgrade their > installations. An arbitrary listing won't do that. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 18:34, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > >>> yet, so that page should be listing 7.4.27. Further, shouldn't we be keeping >>> even 'unsupported' versions on this page, so (e.g. case of check_postgres.pl) >>> clients can check if they have the latest revision, even if the major/minor >>> combo is super old? > >> No, I don't think we should. We should list supported versions only. >> And check_postgres could be advised to throw a warning at least if >> you're running an unsupported version ;) > > I'm not sure how useful that is. Surely while we encourage people to run > a recent major version, we also want to encourage people who will not > or cannot upgrade to at least be running the latest revision of a branch, > no matter how old it is? We don't support 7.3. Not even if you run the latest version. > How about a compromise? We add a new field to that XML so we can state > that it is unsupported, but leave it in there. That way, programs such > as check_postgres can not only distinguish between old but valid versions > and invalid versions (e.g. "7.typo.oops") but can act in a more intelligent > way for unsupported versions. Heck, maybe an estimated end-of-life date > field for all versions as well? How do you add that field in a backwards compatible way? Meaning that people or tools relying on it should *not* see 7.3 or 6.1 or whatever. And it needs to be done within the RSS spec (which does allow custom namespaces though, so that may not be a problem) As for an estimated end-of-life, yes, we could definitely add that. Now that we finally have it :-) > Either way, please add 7.4 back in. :) Done, will be on in the next site rebuild. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 >> I'm not sure how useful that is. Surely while we encourage people to run >> a recent major version, we also want to encourage people who will not >> or cannot upgrade to at least be running the latest revision of a branch, >> no matter how old it is? > We don't support 7.3. Not even if you run the latest version. No, but I imagine we still would encourage people to run the latest revision of it. Come this time next year, I hope that we'll tell people on 7.4.2 to upgrade to 9.0 as soon as possible, but to upgrade to 7.4.27 *immaediately*. >> How about a compromise? We add a new field to that XML so we can state >> that it is unsupported, but leave it in there. That way, programs such >> as check_postgres can not only distinguish between old but valid versions >> and invalid versions (e.g. "7.typo.oops") but can act in a more intelligent >> way for unsupported versions. Heck, maybe an estimated end-of-life date >> field for all versions as well? > How do you add that field in a backwards compatible way? Meaning that > people or tools relying on it should *not* see 7.3 or 6.1 or whatever. > And it needs to be done within the RSS spec (which does allow custom > namespaces though, so that may not be a problem) Well I don't know what people are reading the XML, so let's discuss tools. Do you have a use case in mind where adding old versions would break something? Has this always been advertised as a list of *supported* versions, or as a list of the *latest* revisions? I've always assumed the latter was more important that the former. > As for an estimated end-of-life, yes, we could definitely add that. > Now that we finally have it :-) +1 >> Either way, please add 7.4 back in. :) > >Done, will be on in the next site rebuild. Thanks much, and thanks to Devrim for originally spotting the bug. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201002010931 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAktm5hIACgkQvJuQZxSWSshVwwCeINTRgE7L5UWHJBIJgKDq3GIe X/gAoOivHWlQaVI3nI+TWjUkwxTlicUx =d+Yp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 15:33, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > >>> I'm not sure how useful that is. Surely while we encourage people to run >>> a recent major version, we also want to encourage people who will not >>> or cannot upgrade to at least be running the latest revision of a branch, >>> no matter how old it is? > >> We don't support 7.3. Not even if you run the latest version. > > No, but I imagine we still would encourage people to run the latest revision > of it. Come this time next year, I hope that we'll tell people on 7.4.2 to Do we really, officially, care? > upgrade to 9.0 as soon as possible, but to upgrade to 7.4.27 *immaediately*. We should be, and afaik are, telling people to upgrade away from 7.4 immidiately *already*. >>> How about a compromise? We add a new field to that XML so we can state >>> that it is unsupported, but leave it in there. That way, programs such >>> as check_postgres can not only distinguish between old but valid versions >>> and invalid versions (e.g. "7.typo.oops") but can act in a more intelligent >>> way for unsupported versions. Heck, maybe an estimated end-of-life date >>> field for all versions as well? > >> How do you add that field in a backwards compatible way? Meaning that >> people or tools relying on it should *not* see 7.3 or 6.1 or whatever. >> And it needs to be done within the RSS spec (which does allow custom >> namespaces though, so that may not be a problem) > > Well I don't know what people are reading the XML, so let's discuss tools. > Do you have a use case in mind where adding old versions would break something? I don't know what tools people use. That's the point of using RSS, people can use whatever tool they want. > Has this always been advertised as a list of *supported* versions, or as a list > of the *latest* revisions? I've always assumed the latter was more important > that the former. The *meaning* has always been supported versions, but if you read the contents of the feed it does say latest. Does anybody know if it's actually supported to have multiple channels in one RSS feed? If it is, we could add a second channel with unsupported versions, still listing the latest version of them. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 >> No, but I imagine we still would encourage people to run the latest revision >> of it. Come this time next year, I hope that we'll tell people on 7.4.2 to > > Do we really, officially, care? Well, yes, we certainly should. Just because a branch is no longer officially supported doesn't mean we want to discourage people from running the latest available revision. >> upgrade to 9.0 as soon as possible, but to upgrade to 7.4.27 *immaediately*. > > We should be, and afaik are, telling people to upgrade away from 7.4 > immidiately *already*. Well, sure, but there's a world of difference from upgrading from 7.4.2 to 7.4.27 and from upgrading from 7.4.2 to 8.4.2. > The *meaning* has always been supported versions, but if you read the > contents of the feed it does say latest. Well, I'd prefer to have the old versions, but I can handle the status quo. As long nobody pulls versions before they are really dead again. :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201002111128 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkt0MCUACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjKlQCgr1H+rp14YYhnByAOz2CaGqCp +IAAoN00KX9OVwnxAOZIJpAyGgx6qCv1 =1D4+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----