On 10/30/19 6:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-10-30 17:59:16 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On 10/30/19 5:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2019-09-17 13:50:40 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/19 1:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>>>>>> Yes, but before the release being done we can't hand that out?
>>>>
>>>> You can always hand them out knowing that it is subject to change.
>>>> Personally I view devel as "anything can change at a given moment".
>>>
>>> It still baffles me that that's supposed to be a reasonable approach.
>>
>> Why? "devel" is unstable by design.
>
> I don't really buy this. Nor has it historically been true.
I'll stop selling it then ;)
>
>>> I
>>> mean, for quite a few weeks that's the only link available. And we want
>>> people to be able to look at the notes at that time. And expecting URLs
>>> to stay halfway stable isn't a novel or absurd thing in any sort of way.
>>>
>>> I think the whole project of pruning the release notes was done hastily
>>> and carelessly. At a much larger scope than necessarily apparent from
>>> the mailing list discussions.
>>
>> What would you suggest we do?
>
> I think the ship has largely sailed. Not do things like this again, I
> guess.
I was looking for what you provided below in terms of what you would
like the ongoing behavior to be.
> isn't all that's needed to rename is_released to exists_as_branch, and
> remove the testing=0 condition?
I forget what the original "hairiness" could have been, and it may have
been getting all the logic correct originally on pgweb was a beast.
However, yes, it is that simple, patch attached.
I tested it with a current devel branch, a "beta" branch, and a released
branch, and everything worked as expected.
If no objections, I can apply soon.
Thanks,
Jonathan
