Обсуждение: Ready for RC1
I have applied all outstanding patches and I think we are ready to go
for RC1. These are the open items. I think we will just have to move
them to the TODO list tomorrow, except for the documentation items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.0 Open Items =========================
Current version at http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgopenitems.
Changes
-------
* Win32o Fix shared memory on Win2k terminal server
We might be able to just mark this as not supported.
o Disallow encodings like UTF8 which which PostgreSQL supports but the operating system does not
* adjust bgwriter defaults
* synchonize supported encodings and docs
* warn on COPY TO ... CSV with \r,\n in data
* add external interfaces documentation section
Fixed Since Last Beta
---------------------
* fix gettext support to src/port
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have applied all outstanding patches and I think we are ready to go > for RC1. Considering that you just added at least three new and completely untested features, I don't think RC1 is the way to go. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I have applied all outstanding patches and I think we are ready to go >> for RC1. > > Considering that you just added at least three new and completely > untested features, I don't think RC1 is the way to go. I have to agree here ... I'd do a beta6 tomorrow, but "Open Items for 8.0" means we aren't ready for a "Release Candidate" ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I have applied all outstanding patches and I think we are ready to go > >> for RC1. > > > > Considering that you just added at least three new and completely > > untested features, I don't think RC1 is the way to go. > > I have to agree here ... I'd do a beta6 tomorrow, but "Open Items for 8.0" > means we aren't ready for a "Release Candidate" ... True, I was going to just move them to TODO and push on but there has been on agreement that is the way to go for the open items. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> I have applied all outstanding patches and I think we are ready to go > > >> for RC1. > > > > > > Considering that you just added at least three new and completely > > > untested features, I don't think RC1 is the way to go. > > > > I have to agree here ... I'd do a beta6 tomorrow, but "Open Items for 8.0" > > means we aren't ready for a "Release Candidate" ... > > True, I was going to just move them to TODO and push on but there has > been on agreement that is the way to go for the open items. One more issue. Until we start RC, patches that are bug fixes will continue to be applied. Do we want that? By going RC we are basically saying we need to focus on docs and packaging and we perhaps can keep fixes for 8.0.1. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > One more issue. Until we start RC, patches that are bug fixes will > continue to be applied. Do we want that? By going RC we are basically > saying we need to focus on docs and packaging and we perhaps can keep > fixes for 8.0.1. critical bug fixes should be applied through RC, so that full release is as solid as possible ... that's generally what forces our extra RCs ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > One more issue. Until we start RC, patches that are bug fixes will > > continue to be applied. Do we want that? By going RC we are basically > > saying we need to focus on docs and packaging and we perhaps can keep > > fixes for 8.0.1. > > critical bug fixes should be applied through RC, so that full release is > as solid as possible ... that's generally what forces our extra RCs ... Right. My point is that minor fixes are getting in because we are still in beta, while in RC those minor fixes are held for the next minor release. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> One more issue. Until we start RC, patches that are bug fixes will
> continue to be applied. Do we want that? By going RC we are basically
> saying we need to focus on docs and packaging and we perhaps can keep
> fixes for 8.0.1.
In my mind "RC" means "only critical bug fixes" --- ie, just because
it's a bug fix doesn't mean it won't be held for later. But RC doesn't
mean "no changes, period". It means we're trying to test the thing
without any more code churn than absolutely necessary.
The real problem at the moment is that we should have been in an "only
bug fixes" mode for some time already, and you just pushed in two or
three patches that look more like feature additions to me (and I gather
to Peter as well). *That* is the reason people are getting antsy about
whether we are RC-ready.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > One more issue. Until we start RC, patches that are bug fixes will > > continue to be applied. Do we want that? By going RC we are basically > > saying we need to focus on docs and packaging and we perhaps can keep > > fixes for 8.0.1. > > In my mind "RC" means "only critical bug fixes" --- ie, just because > it's a bug fix doesn't mean it won't be held for later. But RC doesn't > mean "no changes, period". It means we're trying to test the thing > without any more code churn than absolutely necessary. > > The real problem at the moment is that we should have been in an "only > bug fixes" mode for some time already, and you just pushed in two or > three patches that look more like feature additions to me (and I gather > to Peter as well). *That* is the reason people are getting antsy about > whether we are RC-ready. I honestly can't tell whether these are bug fixes or not, especially the encoding changes, so I put them in the queue and when no one says anything I apply them. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
On 12/2/2004 8:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> > One more issue. Until we start RC, patches that are bug fixes will >> > continue to be applied. Do we want that? By going RC we are basically >> > saying we need to focus on docs and packaging and we perhaps can keep >> > fixes for 8.0.1. >> >> In my mind "RC" means "only critical bug fixes" --- ie, just because >> it's a bug fix doesn't mean it won't be held for later. But RC doesn't >> mean "no changes, period". It means we're trying to test the thing >> without any more code churn than absolutely necessary. >> >> The real problem at the moment is that we should have been in an "only >> bug fixes" mode for some time already, and you just pushed in two or >> three patches that look more like feature additions to me (and I gather >> to Peter as well). *That* is the reason people are getting antsy about >> whether we are RC-ready. > > I honestly can't tell whether these are bug fixes or not, especially the > encoding changes, so I put them in the queue and when no one says > anything I apply them. > And that policy is wrong, IMHO. Put patches on the queue and apply them if nobody objects should be the default while we are in development. We were in beta5 and just agreed on getting ready for RC1, which means that the default action is not to apply it unless it is proven that it is a bugfix and only a bugfix with no feature slipping in together with a fix. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #