Обсуждение: Missing link in Developer FAQ
Hi, While translating: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#How_is_the_source_code_organized.3F I found that a link in the page: http://www.postgresql.org/developer/ext.backend.html does not exist anymore. Does anybody know where it is currently? -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
Excerpts from Tatsuo Ishii's message of mié ago 22 04:13:24 -0400 2012: > Hi, > > While translating: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#How_is_the_source_code_organized.3F > > I found that a link in the page: > > http://www.postgresql.org/developer/ext.backend.html > > does not exist anymore. > > Does anybody know where it is currently? It's here: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob_plain;f=src/tools/backend/index.html;hb=master Sadly, the links in it don't work. Maybe the right fix is to have the website expose it again. I don't think it was broken on purpose; my guess is that it was overlooked when the website was migrated to the Django stuff. I note that it says at the bottom "last updated ... 2005". I think keeping this in the git repository has been a mistake. Maybe this is not useful anymore? See also http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20080907205212.GE3975@alvh.no-ip.org -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Tatsuo Ishii's message of mié ago 22 04:13:24 -0400 2012: >> Hi, >> >> While translating: >> >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#How_is_the_source_code_organized.3F >> >> I found that a link in the page: >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/developer/ext.backend.html >> >> does not exist anymore. >> >> Does anybody know where it is currently? > > It's here: > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob_plain;f=src/tools/backend/index.html;hb=master > > Sadly, the links in it don't work. > > Maybe the right fix is to have the website expose it again. I don't > think it was broken on purpose; my guess is that it was overlooked when > the website was migrated to the Django stuff. > > I note that it says at the bottom "last updated ... 2005". I think > keeping this in the git repository has been a mistake. Maybe this is > not useful anymore? I'm pretty sure that's what we decided when migrating to the new website, so it was dropped intentionally. But I can't actually find a reference to the discussion. I think one thing discussed was that the source tree is really a bad place to store it. The entire contents, including images, should probably be migrated to the wiki instead. *or* to the "website proper", but in that case in the actual website SCM, not in the postgresql.git one. Also, it took almost a year for anybody to notice that they weren't there, so they're clearly not used very much. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 23 06:34:53 -0400 2012: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I'm pretty sure that's what we decided when migrating to the new > website, so it was dropped intentionally. But I can't actually find a > reference to the discussion. > > I think one thing discussed was that the source tree is really a bad > place to store it. The entire contents, including images, should > probably be migrated to the wiki instead. *or* to the "website > proper", but in that case in the actual website SCM, not in the > postgresql.git one. That's what I said four years ago. People weren't excited about that idea because "there would be no way for it to be in sync with each different release, only HEAD". I think it's time to let go of that thought and move it to the wiki or website, where we would (try to) ensure that it documents the current development version. There doesn't seem to be any point to keeping multiple versions of it; would-be developers (the intended audience) are all trying to understand *that* version, after all, not the previous ones. > Also, it took almost a year for anybody to notice that they weren't > there, so they're clearly not used very much. I think it's not visible enough. We have plenty of new people trying to understand the PG innards all the time that it remains a useful resource. That's my opinion anyway. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 23 06:34:53 -0400 2012: >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure that's what we decided when migrating to the new >> website, so it was dropped intentionally. But I can't actually find a >> reference to the discussion. >> >> I think one thing discussed was that the source tree is really a bad >> place to store it. The entire contents, including images, should >> probably be migrated to the wiki instead. *or* to the "website >> proper", but in that case in the actual website SCM, not in the >> postgresql.git one. > > That's what I said four years ago. People weren't excited about that > idea because "there would be no way for it to be in sync with each > different release, only HEAD". I think it's time to let go of that > thought and move it to the wiki or website, where we would (try to) > ensure that it documents the current development version. There doesn't > seem to be any point to keeping multiple versions of it; would-be > developers (the intended audience) are all trying to understand *that* > version, after all, not the previous ones. AFAICT, the last time anybody actually did anything but fix typos in it was in 2008. So I think that "stay in sync" argument is not really relevant. >> Also, it took almost a year for anybody to notice that they weren't >> there, so they're clearly not used very much. > > I think it's not visible enough. We have plenty of new people trying to > understand the PG innards all the time that it remains a useful > resource. Oh, I'm not saying we should get rid of it. Just migrate it to a better position. If we put it "properly on the website" it would probably get *more* exposure, rather than less... -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> Oh, I'm not saying we should get rid of it. Just migrate it to a > better position. If we put it "properly on the website" it would > probably get *more* exposure, rather than less... And more updating. +1. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:50:45PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 23 06:34:53 -0400 2012: > >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera > >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > >> I'm pretty sure that's what we decided when migrating to the new > >> website, so it was dropped intentionally. But I can't actually find a > >> reference to the discussion. > >> > >> I think one thing discussed was that the source tree is really a bad > >> place to store it. The entire contents, including images, should > >> probably be migrated to the wiki instead. *or* to the "website > >> proper", but in that case in the actual website SCM, not in the > >> postgresql.git one. > > > > That's what I said four years ago. People weren't excited about that > > idea because "there would be no way for it to be in sync with each > > different release, only HEAD". I think it's time to let go of that > > thought and move it to the wiki or website, where we would (try to) > > ensure that it documents the current development version. There doesn't > > seem to be any point to keeping multiple versions of it; would-be > > developers (the intended audience) are all trying to understand *that* > > version, after all, not the previous ones. > > AFAICT, the last time anybody actually did anything but fix typos in > it was in 2008. So I think that "stay in sync" argument is not really > relevant. > > > >> Also, it took almost a year for anybody to notice that they weren't > >> there, so they're clearly not used very much. > > > > I think it's not visible enough. We have plenty of new people trying to > > understand the PG innards all the time that it remains a useful > > resource. > > Oh, I'm not saying we should get rid of it. Just migrate it to a > better position. If we put it "properly on the website" it would > probably get *more* exposure, rather than less... I am ready to work on this. The flowchart has three parts: 1) the image, with hot clickable areas --- I assume this can't be done in a wiki and has to be on our website. 2) text for clickable links in #1 --- needs either a wiki page for every entry or an html 'id' that allows us to scroll to the desired entry. This can be done on the wiki. Would be nice to add links to the README files in specific directories too. 3) links from the #2 text to the git source code tree, e.g. http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=tree;f=src/backend/commands Who can help me setup #1 and I can do #2 and #3? I need a web directory to hold the image and the ability to edit the HTML to link properly to the wiki. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:50:45PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 23 06:34:53 -0400 2012: >> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > >> >> I'm pretty sure that's what we decided when migrating to the new >> >> website, so it was dropped intentionally. But I can't actually find a >> >> reference to the discussion. >> >> >> >> I think one thing discussed was that the source tree is really a bad >> >> place to store it. The entire contents, including images, should >> >> probably be migrated to the wiki instead. *or* to the "website >> >> proper", but in that case in the actual website SCM, not in the >> >> postgresql.git one. >> > >> > That's what I said four years ago. People weren't excited about that >> > idea because "there would be no way for it to be in sync with each >> > different release, only HEAD". I think it's time to let go of that >> > thought and move it to the wiki or website, where we would (try to) >> > ensure that it documents the current development version. There doesn't >> > seem to be any point to keeping multiple versions of it; would-be >> > developers (the intended audience) are all trying to understand *that* >> > version, after all, not the previous ones. >> >> AFAICT, the last time anybody actually did anything but fix typos in >> it was in 2008. So I think that "stay in sync" argument is not really >> relevant. >> >> >> >> Also, it took almost a year for anybody to notice that they weren't >> >> there, so they're clearly not used very much. >> > >> > I think it's not visible enough. We have plenty of new people trying to >> > understand the PG innards all the time that it remains a useful >> > resource. >> >> Oh, I'm not saying we should get rid of it. Just migrate it to a >> better position. If we put it "properly on the website" it would >> probably get *more* exposure, rather than less... > > I am ready to work on this. The flowchart has three parts: > > 1) the image, with hot clickable areas --- I assume this can't be done > in a wiki and has to be on our website. There is an extensoin that let's you do that, but we don't have that one installed. And I'm not sure we want it to be on there anyway... > 2) text for clickable links in #1 --- needs either a wiki page for > every entry or an html 'id' that allows us to scroll to the desired > entry. This can be done on the wiki. Would be nice to add links to the > README files in specific directories too. > > 3) links from the #2 text to the git source code tree, e.g. > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=tree;f=src/backend/commands > > Who can help me setup #1 and I can do #2 and #3? I need a web directory > to hold the image and the ability to edit the HTML to link properly to > the wiki. If you can provide the raw HTML, I can do the integration to the web framework. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 09:37:48AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > AFAICT, the last time anybody actually did anything but fix typos in > > it was in 2008. So I think that "stay in sync" argument is not really > > relevant. > > > > > > >> Also, it took almost a year for anybody to notice that they weren't > > >> there, so they're clearly not used very much. > > > > > > I think it's not visible enough. We have plenty of new people trying to > > > understand the PG innards all the time that it remains a useful > > > resource. > > > > Oh, I'm not saying we should get rid of it. Just migrate it to a > > better position. If we put it "properly on the website" it would > > probably get *more* exposure, rather than less... > > I am ready to work on this. The flowchart has three parts: > > 1) the image, with hot clickable areas --- I assume this can't be done > in a wiki and has to be on our website. > > 2) text for clickable links in #1 --- needs either a wiki page for > every entry or an html 'id' that allows us to scroll to the desired > entry. This can be done on the wiki. Would be nice to add links to the > README files in specific directories too. > > 3) links from the #2 text to the git source code tree, e.g. > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=tree;f=src/backend/commands > > Who can help me setup #1 and I can do #2 and #3? I need a web directory > to hold the image and the ability to edit the HTML to link properly to > the wiki. OK, updated flowchart now online: http://www.postgresql.org/developer/backend/ While the main page requires a patch to modify, the wiki it links to can be modified by anyone with a wiki account. I have removed src/tools/backend from git now that we are hosting it elsewhere. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar sep 04 13:39:23 -0300 2012: > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 09:37:48AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am ready to work on this. The flowchart has three parts: > OK, updated flowchart now online: > > http://www.postgresql.org/developer/backend/ > > While the main page requires a patch to modify, the wiki it links to can > be modified by anyone with a wiki account. > > I have removed src/tools/backend from git now that we are hosting it > elsewhere. After giving this some more thought and sleep, I think the main website is an ill-suited place for this kind of thing. I think it belongs somewhere in http://developer.postgresql.org maybe under ~bmomjian ;-) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 01:21:36PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar sep 04 13:39:23 -0300 2012: > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 09:37:48AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I am ready to work on this. The flowchart has three parts: > > > OK, updated flowchart now online: > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/developer/backend/ > > > > While the main page requires a patch to modify, the wiki it links to can > > be modified by anyone with a wiki account. > > > > I have removed src/tools/backend from git now that we are hosting it > > elsewhere. > > After giving this some more thought and sleep, I think the main website > is an ill-suited place for this kind of thing. I think it belongs > somewhere in http://developer.postgresql.org maybe under ~bmomjian ;-) Well http://developer.postgresql.org redirects to our main site. You want the URL in a different location? You don't want it linked to our developer tab? You want the content out of the pgweb git tree? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 09/05/2012 06:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 01:21:36PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar sep 04 13:39:23 -0300 2012: >>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 09:37:48AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>>> I am ready to work on this. The flowchart has three parts: >> >>> OK, updated flowchart now online: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/developer/backend/ >>> >>> While the main page requires a patch to modify, the wiki it links to can >>> be modified by anyone with a wiki account. >>> >>> I have removed src/tools/backend from git now that we are hosting it >>> elsewhere. >> >> After giving this some more thought and sleep, I think the main website >> is an ill-suited place for this kind of thing. I think it belongs >> somewhere in http://developer.postgresql.org maybe under ~bmomjian ;-) > > Well http://developer.postgresql.org redirects to our main site. You > want the URL in a different location? You don't want it linked to our > developer tab? You want the content out of the pgweb git tree? not sure redirecting developer.postgresql.org to the main website is perfect but well... Thinking about it I guess alvaro has a point, the backend flowchart is kinda an odd think on the current website. it is fairly technical and seems to be content that needs to be maintained external which is obvious from the fact alone that is like has 2x the number of links to external sources ie one single page of the wiki and various pointers into gitweb and not a single one to the website (well that is not correct - it has one for backend/commands which looks like a typo). I think the obvious place to put it is the wiki (given that the gist of the textual information is there already) and I don't think that loosing the "clickable" aspect of the picture is really a problem (i think the almost impossible to read pink text is one though). Stefan
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 07:07:26PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 09/05/2012 06:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 01:21:36PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar sep 04 13:39:23 -0300 2012: > >>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 09:37:48AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > >>>> I am ready to work on this. The flowchart has three parts: > >> > >>> OK, updated flowchart now online: > >>> > >>> http://www.postgresql.org/developer/backend/ > >>> > >>> While the main page requires a patch to modify, the wiki it links to can > >>> be modified by anyone with a wiki account. > >>> > >>> I have removed src/tools/backend from git now that we are hosting it > >>> elsewhere. > >> > >> After giving this some more thought and sleep, I think the main website > >> is an ill-suited place for this kind of thing. I think it belongs > >> somewhere in http://developer.postgresql.org maybe under ~bmomjian ;-) > > > > Well http://developer.postgresql.org redirects to our main site. You > > want the URL in a different location? You don't want it linked to our > > developer tab? You want the content out of the pgweb git tree? > > not sure redirecting developer.postgresql.org to the main website is > perfect but well... > > Thinking about it I guess alvaro has a point, the backend flowchart is > kinda an odd think on the current website. it is fairly technical and > seems to be content that needs to be maintained external which is > obvious from the fact alone that is like has 2x the number of links to > external sources ie one single page of the wiki and various pointers > into gitweb and not a single one to the website (well that is not > correct - it has one for backend/commands which looks like a typo). Thanks, I have submitted a patch to Magnus for that. > I think the obvious place to put it is the wiki (given that the gist of > the textual information is there already) and I don't think that loosing > the "clickable" aspect of the picture is really a problem (i think the > almost impossible to read pink text is one though). Well, it used to be in our git code tree, but people didn't like it there. If you want to put it in my home directory, that is fine. I don't see moving it to a wiki with lost functionality as a win. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +