Thread: Maintenance release
Hi Dave, how do you think about a maintenance release of pgAdmin3? We had some fixes, that could be made official. Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 13 October 2003 11:21 > To: Dave Page; pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Maintenance release > > Hi Dave, > > how do you think about a maintenance release of pgAdmin3? We > had some fixes, that could be made official. I was trying to put it off long enough to capture as many bugs as possible, and avoid the need for 1.0.2. Are there any that you keep seeing reports about that should expedite the release? /D
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 13 October 2003 16:45 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers; Hiroshi Saito > Subject: Re: Maintenance release > > Yes, the "column Würzlipfürtz not found" error has been > reported several times, seems to be the most annoying one. > There's still the problem pending that Hiroshi reported, > apparently the line conv = wxConvUTF8; doesn't assign > wxConvUTF8 to conv for Microsoft compilers... I changed this > from a reference to a pointer, so the C+- compiler can't mess > it up, hopefully Hiroshi can confirm this to be working. > There are probably some SQL_ASCII databases out there that > contain non-ascii data, and we can expect several complaints > about that. OK, let's wait to hear from Hiroshi, then if all's well put out 1.0.1 unless anyone else has anything to add? Regards, Dave.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito@inetrt.skcapi.co.jp] > Sent: 13 October 2003 17:51 > To: Dave Page; Andreas Pflug > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: Maintenance release > > > It can be operated pleasantly.:-) > Thank you. :-) Looks like we're good to go then! I'll see if I can roll something tomorrow (no promises). Regards, Dave
Dave Page wrote: > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] >>Sent: 13 October 2003 11:21 >>To: Dave Page; pgadmin-hackers >>Subject: Maintenance release >> >>Hi Dave, >> >>how do you think about a maintenance release of pgAdmin3? We >>had some fixes, that could be made official. >> >> > >I was trying to put it off long enough to capture as many bugs as >possible, and avoid the need for 1.0.2. > >Are there any that you keep seeing reports about that should expedite >the release? > >/D > > > Yes, the "column Würzlipfürtz not found" error has been reported several times, seems to be the most annoying one. There's still the problem pending that Hiroshi reported, apparently the line conv = wxConvUTF8; doesn't assign wxConvUTF8 to conv for Microsoft compilers... I changed this from a reference to a pointer, so the C+- compiler can't mess it up, hopefully Hiroshi can confirm this to be working. There are probably some SQL_ASCII databases out there that contain non-ascii data, and we can expect several complaints about that. Regards, Andreas
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 13 October 2003 16:45 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers; Hiroshi Saito > Subject: Re: Maintenance release > > Yes, the "column Würzlipfürtz not found" error has been > reported several times, seems to be the most annoying one. > There's still the problem pending that Hiroshi reported, > apparently the line conv = wxConvUTF8; doesn't assign > wxConvUTF8 to conv for Microsoft compilers... I changed this > from a reference to a pointer, so the C+- compiler can't mess > it up, hopefully Hiroshi can confirm this to be working. > There are probably some SQL_ASCII databases out there that > contain non-ascii data, and we can expect several complaints > about that. It can be operated pleasantly.:-) Thank you. > OK, let's wait to hear from Hiroshi, then if all's well put out 1.0.1 unless anyone else has anything to add? > > Regards, Dave. I have the necessary condition that wants to improve it. However, the release many problems are solved at present is necessary. regards, Hiroshi Saito
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Page > Sent: 13 October 2003 20:33 > To: Hiroshi Saito; Andreas Pflug > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Maintenance release > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito@inetrt.skcapi.co.jp] > > Sent: 13 October 2003 17:51 > > To: Dave Page; Andreas Pflug > > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > > Subject: Re: Maintenance release > > > > > > It can be operated pleasantly.:-) > > Thank you. > > :-) > > Looks like we're good to go then! I'll see if I can roll > something tomorrow (no promises). OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. Lemme know if anything isn't right. Hopefully we won't need any more as this was a right pita to produce with the wx changes.... Regards, Dave
Le Mardi 14 Octobre 2003 16:30, Dave Page a écrit : > OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. Kool. Could you create http://snake.pgadmin.org/ftp/release/SRPMS please to avoid duplicates. Thanks, Jean-Michel
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:jm@poure.com] > Sent: 14 October 2003 15:43 > To: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Maintenance release > > Le Mardi 14 Octobre 2003 16:30, Dave Page a écrit : > > OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. > > Kool. Could you create > http://snake.pgadmin.org/ftp/release/SRPMS please to avoid > duplicates. Thanks, Jean-Michel Done. /D
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> Sent: October 14, 2003 10:30 AM > OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. > > Lemme know if anything isn't right. What's wrong in having a Windows 9x release of pgAdmin? Sorry for jumping in, especially if this has been discussed before... -s
> -----Original Message----- > From: Serguei Mokhov [mailto:mokhov@cs.concordia.ca] > Sent: 14 October 2003 16:09 > To: Dave Page; Hiroshi Saito; Andreas Pflug > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Maintenance release > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> > Sent: October 14, 2003 10:30 AM > > > OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. > > > > Lemme know if anything isn't right. > > What's wrong in having a Windows 9x release of pgAdmin? Windows 9x doesn't have the Unicode support we require, and we figured that most ppl are on Win2k by now. You are the first person to have brought it up! It is (might be was) possible to compile pgAdmin for 9x, but it's yet another port to maintain. Do you desperately need it? > Sorry for jumping in, especially if this has been discussed before... Feel free to jump in, otherwise we wouldn't know what ppl want :-) Regards, Dave.
Serguei Mokhov wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> >Sent: October 14, 2003 10:30 AM > > > >>OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. >> >>Lemme know if anything isn't right. >> >> > >What's wrong in having a Windows 9x release of pgAdmin? >Sorry for jumping in, especially if this has been discussed >before... > > If you need it, you could compile pgAdmin3 from source, *without* Unicode support. This should work, although nobody tried so far running this bleeding-edge tool on ancient 16-bit software... :-) Regards, Andreas
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> Sent: October 14, 2003 11:07 AM > > > OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. > > > > > > Lemme know if anything isn't right. > > > > What's wrong in having a Windows 9x release of pgAdmin? > > Windows 9x doesn't have the Unicode support we require, and we figured > that most ppl are on Win2k by now. You are the first person to have > brought it up! Oh, really? :| Cuz quite a few users still use Windows 98. (Yet very small fraction of them use PG and the admin tools; out of which phpPgAdmin dominates...) > It is (might be was) possible to compile pgAdmin for 9x, but it's yet > another port to maintain. Do you desperately need it? I'd love to have it for a couple of my 98 boxes. I did try to compile it with Visual C++ on my Win98 SE a couple of months back. Originally, it did not. The first reason was UNIX EOLs for VC++ project and workspace files... Then I had issues with compiling and linking to wxWindows... and then I didn't have time. Though my compiling and linking problems existed because I used not your version of wxWindows, but the one from their website. Only after I realized that you had your proper patches for it. > > Sorry for jumping in, especially if this has been discussed before... > > Feel free to jump in, otherwise we wouldn't know what ppl want :-) Thanks :) > Regards, Dave. > -s
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> Sent: October 14, 2003 11:24 AM > >>OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. > >> > >>Lemme know if anything isn't right. > >> > >> > > > >What's wrong in having a Windows 9x release of pgAdmin? > >Sorry for jumping in, especially if this has been discussed > >before... > > > > > > If you need it, you could compile pgAdmin3 from source, *without* > Unicode support. This should work, although nobody tried so far running > this bleeding-edge tool on ancient 16-bit software... :-) Huh? Windows 3.1 is a "ancient 16-bit software"; Windows 95/98/Me are all 32-bit. I'm having no problems with other software tools with Unicode support. :P -s
> -----Original Message----- > From: Serguei Mokhov [mailto:mokhov@cs.concordia.ca] > Sent: 14 October 2003 16:36 > To: Dave Page; Hiroshi Saito; Andreas Pflug > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Maintenance release > > > > Oh, really? :| Cuz quite a few users still use Windows 98. Yes, really. Search the archives... > (Yet very small fraction of them use PG and the admin tools; > out of which phpPgAdmin dominates...) Huh? Unless you have evidence to the contrary: http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=7 clearly puts pgAdmin in second place behind psql, and that was before we added Linux/FreeBSD support. > > It is (might be was) possible to compile pgAdmin for 9x, > but it's yet > > another port to maintain. Do you desperately need it? > > I'd love to have it for a couple of my 98 boxes. I did try to > compile it with Visual C++ on my Win98 SE a couple of months > back. Originally, it did not. > The first reason was UNIX EOLs for VC++ project and workspace > files... Then I had issues with compiling and linking to > wxWindows... and then I didn't have time. Though my compiling > and linking problems existed because I used not your version > of wxWindows, but the one from their website. Only after I > realized that you had your proper patches for it. I will look into doing a port then.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> Sent: October 14, 2003 11:44 AM > > Oh, really? :| Cuz quite a few users still use Windows 98. > > Yes, really. Search the archives... > > > (Yet very small fraction of them use PG and the admin tools; > > out of which phpPgAdmin dominates...) > > Huh? Unless you have evidence to the contrary: > http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=7 clearly puts > pgAdmin in second place behind psql, and that was before we added > Linux/FreeBSD support. I was talking about Win9x users only, not the global scope :) > I will look into doing a port then. Thanks :) -s
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Serguei Mokhov [mailto:mokhov@cs.concordia.ca]
> Sent: 14 October 2003 16:38
> To: Andreas Pflug
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Maintenance release
>
>
> Huh? Windows 3.1 is a "ancient 16-bit software"; Windows
> 95/98/Me are all 32-bit. I'm having no problems with other
> software tools with Unicode support. :P
You'll have to take that up with Microsoft/wxWindows team. From the wx
setup.h file:
//
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
// Unicode support
//
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
// Set wxUSE_UNICODE to 1 to compile wxWindows in Unicode mode: wxChar
will be
// defined as wchar_t, wxString will use Unicode internally. If you set
this
// to 1, you must use wxT() macro for all literal strings in the
program.
//
// Unicode is currently only fully supported under Windows NT/2000/XP
// (Windows 9x doesn't support it and the programs compiled in Unicode
mode
// will not run under 9x -- but see wxUSE_UNICODE_MSLU below).
//
// Default is 0
//
// Recommended setting: 0 (unless you only plan to use Windows
NT/2000/XP)
#ifndef wxUSE_UNICODE
#define wxUSE_UNICODE 1
#endif
// Set wxUSE_UNICODE_MSLU to 1 if you want to compile wxWindows in
Unicode mode
// and be able to run compiled apps under Windows 9x as well as
NT/2000/XP.
// This setting enables use of unicows.dll from MSLU (MS Layer for
Unicode, see
// http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/handson/dev/mslu_announce.mspx).
Note that
// you will have to modify the makefiles to include unicows.lib import
library
// as the first library (if you use MSVC, you can run the makefile with
"nmake
// MSLU=1 UNICODE=1" command).
//
// If your compiler doesn't have unicows.lib, you can get a version of
it at
// http://libunicows.sourceforge.net
//
// Default is 0
//
// Recommended setting: 0 (1 if you want to deploy Unicode apps on 9x
systems)
#define wxUSE_UNICODE_MSLU 0
Regards, Dave
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> Sent: October 14, 2003 11:57 AM > Serguei Mokhov wrote: > > >Huh? Windows 3.1 is a "ancient 16-bit software"; Windows 95/98/Me > >are all 32-bit. > > > They are 32 bit GUIs on a 16 bit OS, formerly called DOS... Yes, I know. Yet they still are classified as Win32 family. But this is getting a bit off-topic, I should think :) > > I'm having no problems with other software tools with > >Unicode support. :P > > > > > Hu? AFAIR thes windows version lack Unicode support. It can be added They _do_ lack Unicode support "natively", indeed. I didn't argue about that :) You have to bring it in, and then it works. That what those apps' developers did, I guess, with the unicode DLL and stuff. -s
> -----Original Message----- > From: Serguei Mokhov [mailto:mokhov@cs.concordia.ca] > Sent: 14 October 2003 16:56 > To: Dave Page; Hiroshi Saito; Andreas Pflug > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Maintenance release > > > I will look into doing a port then. > > Thanks :) OK, I got it to compile against wx2.4. Install the normal build, then replace the .exe with the one from http://snake.pgadmin.org/ftp/release/win32/win9x/ This will work it's way on to the mirrors within the next day or so. Note that CVS head is definitely not 9x friendly at the moment... Regards, Dave.
Serguei Mokhov wrote: >Huh? Windows 3.1 is a "ancient 16-bit software"; Windows 95/98/Me >are all 32-bit. > They are 32 bit GUIs on a 16 bit OS, formerly called DOS... > I'm having no problems with other software tools with >Unicode support. :P > > Hu? AFAIR thes windows version lack Unicode support. It can be added using a DLL, but nobody tried so far because we don't have any of these running. You're invited to try this and report the results! See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/mslu/winprog/microsoft_layer_for_unicode_on_windows_95_98_me_systems.asp Regards, Andreas
Dave Page wrote: >OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. >Lemme know if anything isn't right. >Hopefully we won't need any more as this was a right pita to produce >with the wx changes.... >Regards, Dave > > Hi all, as this "my" first maintenance release with you and just for my personnal culture/information can you tell me how a maintenance update is constituted and what the requisites are ? Is it a backport of the patches released in 1.1.0 to 1.0.0 and though need to be built against the older wxWindows snapshot (20030831) [or it may needs to be built with the newer one?] ? Is it a frozen snapshot of the 1.1.0 ? Thanks a lot for your future teaching :) regards, Raphaël
Raphaël Enrici wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >> OK, tarballs for Slackware, Windows and Source are on Snake. >> Lemme know if anything isn't right. >> Hopefully we won't need any more as this was a right pita to produce >> with the wx changes.... >> Regards, Dave >> >> > Hi all, > as this "my" first maintenance release with you and just for my > personnal culture/information can you tell me how a maintenance update > is constituted and what the requisites are ? > Is it a backport of the patches released in 1.1.0 to 1.0.0 and though > need to be built against the older wxWindows snapshot (20030831) [or > it may needs to be built with the newer one?] ? > Is it a frozen snapshot of the 1.1.0 ? It may be built against the older snapshot as well as the newer one. It's not a 1.1.0. snapshot, some fixes are backported to a new 1.0.x trunk. IMHO things about wx are settling, so the next release will be probably cvs head based, thus be a 1.1.0 version. Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz@club-internet.fr] > Sent: 14 October 2003 19:37 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Hiroshi Saito; Andreas Pflug; pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Maintenance release > > > as this "my" first maintenance release with you and just for > my personnal culture/information can you tell me how a > maintenance update is constituted and what the requisites are ? > Is it a backport of the patches released in 1.1.0 to 1.0.0 > and though need to be built against the older wxWindows > snapshot (20030831) [or it may needs to be built with the > newer one?] ? > Is it a frozen snapshot of the 1.1.0 ? > > Thanks a lot for your future teaching :) It's our first proper one as well! In pgAdmin II we just fixed bugs whilts chilling out post release! Here's what we did this time. Immediately after release I created a REL-1_0_0_PATCHES branch in CVS. This is basically acopy of the code made at that point in time (I actually made it based on the REL-1_0_0 tag). From that point on, developmentcontinues in the main branch (aka, head or tip). Whenever a bug is found in 1.0.0, it is fixed in the main branch. It may also be added to the patches branch which requiresa second application of the patch, to the patch branch (I have 2 copies of the pgAdmin tree here at the moment).Obviously as development continues, double patching becomes harder as the branches drift apart (it's also possibleto only patch the patches branch and later merge the 2 branches back together, but that seemed like a potential headacheto me). To ensure the stability of the patches branch we only include low impact fixes which is why I was so againstupgrading wx (which I was eventually convinced to do, so yes, 20031010 is the wx build to use)... The branches can be seen at http://cvs.pgadmin.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/pgadmin3/CHANGELOG.txt?graph=1 in a nice graphicalview. Hth, regards, Dave.
Le Mardi 14 Octobre 2003 17:02, Dave Page a écrit : > > Kool. Could you create > > http://snake.pgadmin.org/ftp/release/SRPMS please to avoid > > duplicates. Thanks, Jean-Michel > Done. I don't have enough rights to upload the SRPM package there. Cheers, Jean-Michel
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:jm@poure.com] > Sent: 14 October 2003 21:36 > To: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Maintenance release > > Le Mardi 14 Octobre 2003 17:02, Dave Page a écrit : > > > Kool. Could you create > > > http://snake.pgadmin.org/ftp/release/SRPMS please to avoid > > > duplicates. Thanks, Jean-Michel > > Done. > > I don't have enough rights to upload the SRPM package there. > Cheers, Jean-Michel Root isn't enough? ;-) Fixed. Regards Dave.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> Sent: October 14, 2003 12:29 PM > > > I will look into doing a port then. > > > > Thanks :) > > OK, I got it to compile against wx2.4. Install the normal build, then > replace the .exe with the one from > http://snake.pgadmin.org/ftp/release/win32/win9x/ Yes, it seems to work! Thanks! :-) -s