9.4 docs current as of

9.4 beta docs are listed as "Current as of 2014-05-10".

I'm assuming that's just a step we missed in the version stamping?
Needs to go on a checklist? Should we backpatch a fix for that?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> 9.4 beta docs are listed as "Current as of 2014-05-10".
> I'm assuming that's just a step we missed in the version stamping?

No, what that means is that nobody has looked at the commit logs since
then to see if the 9.4 release notes need any updates. Since we don't
release-note simple bug fixes in a branch before the .0 release,
9.4 isn't yet getting the same notes as the back branches; it requires
a scan of the commit logs with different criteria, ie look for feature
changes. And I didn't do that over the weekend (I barely got the
back-branch notes done :-().

It will get done at least once before 9.4.0, but I suspect that any
changes as a result of that will be pretty minor, so I'm not terribly
upset that it didn't happen for beta2.

regards, tom lane

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> 9.4 beta docs are listed as "Current as of 2014-05-10".
>> I'm assuming that's just a step we missed in the version stamping?
>
> No, what that means is that nobody has looked at the commit logs since
> then to see if the 9.4 release notes need any updates. Since we don't
> release-note simple bug fixes in a branch before the .0 release,
> 9.4 isn't yet getting the same notes as the back branches; it requires
> a scan of the commit logs with different criteria, ie look for feature
> changes. And I didn't do that over the weekend (I barely got the
> back-branch notes done :-().

Ah. I just did a "git log" on it and saw there were a number of
updates in the relnotes themselves, didn't reflect on the fact that
nobody had checked them against *other* updates to the tree.

> It will get done at least once before 9.4.0, but I suspect that any
> changes as a result of that will be pretty minor, so I'm not terribly
> upset that it didn't happen for beta2.

Nope, I agree. I just thought it meant something else...

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 06:27:52PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> >> 9.4 beta docs are listed as "Current as of 2014-05-10".
> >> I'm assuming that's just a step we missed in the version stamping?
> >
> > No, what that means is that nobody has looked at the commit logs since
> > then to see if the 9.4 release notes need any updates. Since we don't
> > release-note simple bug fixes in a branch before the .0 release,
> > 9.4 isn't yet getting the same notes as the back branches; it requires
> > a scan of the commit logs with different criteria, ie look for feature
> > changes. And I didn't do that over the weekend (I barely got the
> > back-branch notes done :-().
>
> Ah. I just did a "git log" on it and saw there were a number of
> updates in the relnotes themselves, didn't reflect on the fact that
> nobody had checked them against *other* updates to the tree.
>
>
> > It will get done at least once before 9.4.0, but I suspect that any
> > changes as a result of that will be pretty minor, so I'm not terribly
> > upset that it didn't happen for beta2.
>
> Nope, I agree. I just thought it meant something else...

I will update them in the next few weeks so we are ready for final. I
normally would have done them before beta2 but was traveling.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +