Re: rc1 or beta4?

The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 14:00 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Are we going with beta4 or rc1?

RC1:

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/19869.1312298345@sss.pgh.pa.us

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

2011/8/17 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>:
> On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 14:00 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
>
> RC1:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/19869.1312298345@sss.pgh.pa.us

In Tom's final email to the -core thread he mentions I see now that he
did say RC1. I thought we were voting on the date though (not that I
have a problem with it being RC1).

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Hello, Dave.

You wrote:

DP> The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
DP> release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?

+1 for RC1

DP> --
DP> Dave Page
DP> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
DP> Twitter: @pgsnake

DP> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
DP> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
With best wishes,
Pavel mailto:pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com

Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>>> Are we going with beta4 or rc1?

> In Tom's final email to the -core thread he mentions I see now that he
> did say RC1. I thought we were voting on the date though (not that I
> have a problem with it being RC1).

Well, if this one's not ready to be an RC then I think we can forget
about pushing out a final during September ...

regards, tom lane

On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
> The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
> release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?

Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to include fixes for the
two segfault plpython bugs[1] before wrapping up the release.

Cheers,
Jan

[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4E4BCD52.90804@wulczer.org

On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:

> On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
> > The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
> > release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
>
> Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to include fixes for the
> two segfault plpython bugs[1] before wrapping up the release.
>

It's not listed as a beta-blocker yet. I take it that it should?

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:
> On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
>> The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
>> release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
>
> Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to include fixes for the
> two segfault plpython bugs[1] before wrapping up the release.

And Ashesh's fix for building against ActiveState Python 3.2:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00836.php.
Care to review that one? :-)

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
>>> The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
>>> release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
>>
>> Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to include fixes for the
>> two segfault plpython bugs[1] before wrapping up the release.
>>
>
> It's not listed as a beta-blocker yet. I take it that it should?

Oh, in the wiki? I don't know, it is a segfault-causing bug, but all I
wanted was to draw some attention in case the people wrapping the
release missed that thread.

Jan

On 17 August 2011 16:56, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:

> On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
> >>> The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
> >>> release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
> >>
> >> Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to include fixes for the
> >> two segfault plpython bugs[1] before wrapping up the release.
> >>
> >
> > It's not listed as a beta-blocker yet. I take it that it should?
>
> Oh, in the wiki? I don't know, it is a segfault-causing bug, but all I
> wanted was to draw some attention in case the people wrapping the
> release missed that thread.
>

It was my understanding that the only things which can prevent a new beta or
release candidate are listed on the wiki (
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Open_Items). There's only
one item on the list now, and I think even that has probably been fixed. If
it's not on there, I guess it hasn't yet been considered to be something
which can block a release. Since it's not even listed as a non-blocker
either, I don't think it's been reviewed in this context.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 16:56, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
>> > On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
>> >>> The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
>> >>> release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to include fixes for
>> >> the
>> >> two segfault plpython bugs[1] before wrapping up the release.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's not listed as a beta-blocker yet.  I take it that it should?
>>
>> Oh, in the wiki? I don't know, it is a segfault-causing bug, but all I
>> wanted was to draw some attention in case the people wrapping the
>> release missed that thread.
>
> It was my understanding that the only things which can prevent a new beta or
> release candidate are listed on the wiki
> (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Open_Items).  There's only
> one item on the list now, and I think even that has probably been fixed.  If
> it's not on there, I guess it hasn't yet been considered to be something
> which can block a release.  Since it's not even listed as a non-blocker
> either, I don't think it's been reviewed in this context.

That doesn't mean other things can't or shouldn't be fixed - just that
they won't necessarily cause adjustment of the schedule to accomodate
them.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
> On 17 August 2011 16:56, Jan Urbaski <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:
>> On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> It's not listed as a beta-blocker yet. I take it that it should?

>> Oh, in the wiki? I don't know, it is a segfault-causing bug, but all I
>> wanted was to draw some attention in case the people wrapping the
>> release missed that thread.

> It was my understanding that the only things which can prevent a new beta or
> release candidate are listed on the wiki (
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Open_Items). There's only
> one item on the list now, and I think even that has probably been fixed. If
> it's not on there, I guess it hasn't yet been considered to be something
> which can block a release. Since it's not even listed as a non-blocker
> either, I don't think it's been reviewed in this context.

I think you're imagining a lot more structure than actually exists in
this project ;-). Anybody can edit that page, and there's no necessary
consequence of something being written there. It's just notes to help
us keep track of issues, not something graven on stone tablets.

The pg_upgrade thing is listed as a beta blocker because I put it there
--- but that's just my opinion. If it had proven hard to fix we might
have concluded that we wouldn't let it block a beta release.

If the plpython thing is a new crash that didn't exist before 9.1,
my feeling is that it's a blocker.

regards, tom lane

On 08/17/2011 09:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I think you're imagining a lot more structure than actually exists in
> this project ;-). Anybody can edit that page, and there's no necessary
> consequence of something being written there. It's just notes to help
> us keep track of issues, not something graven on stone tablets.
>
> The pg_upgrade thing is listed as a beta blocker because I put it there
> --- but that's just my opinion. If it had proven hard to fix we might
> have concluded that we wouldn't let it block a beta release.
>
> If the plpython thing is a new crash that didn't exist before 9.1,
> my feeling is that it's a blocker.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

I can confirm that the bug in pg_upgrade has been fixed with Bruce's patch
in commit 2411fbdac448045a23eebf4f0dbfd5790ebad720

Thanks
Dave Byrne

Dave Byrne <dbyrne(at)mdb(dot)com> writes:
> I can confirm that the bug in pg_upgrade has been fixed with Bruce's patch
> in commit 2411fbdac448045a23eebf4f0dbfd5790ebad720

Thanks, I marked it resolved on the wiki page.

regards, tom lane

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

> That doesn't mean other things can't or shouldn't be fixed - just that
> they won't necessarily cause adjustment of the schedule to accomodate
> them.

+1

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services