Thread: pgAdmin 1.0.2 Bundled...
Hi Guys, I just finished bundling the source tarball, win32 builds and Slackware build of v1.0.2. This version is built using the new wx snapshot, which has also been added to the ftp mirrors. Please take a look and let me know if there are any problems - porters; please update your release builds (don't forget that the old 1.0 configure script needs a monolithic wx build). Sites other than snake may take a day or so to pickup the new files. Cheers, Dave.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I just finished bundling the source tarball, win32 builds and Slackware
> build of v1.0.2. This version is built using the new wx snapshot, which
> has also been added to the ftp mirrors.
>
> Please take a look and let me know if there are any problems - porters;
> please update your release builds (don't forget that the old 1.0
> configure script needs a monolithic wx build).
Hi Dave.
In a new edition of wxWindows, you also have to apply the way of REL-1_0_0_PATCHES.
--- src/ui/ctlSQLBox.cpp.orig Fri Nov 28 23:44:20 2003
+++ src/ui/ctlSQLBox.cpp Fri Nov 28 23:46:06 2003
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@
// SQL Lexer and keywords.
// SetLexer(lmPostgreSQL.GetLanguage());
SetLexer(wxSTC_LEX_SQL);
- SetKeyWords(0, SQL_KEYWORDS);
+ SetKeyWords(0, SQL_KEYWORDS.MakeLower());
wxAcceleratorEntry entries[1];
entries[0].Set(wxACCEL_CTRL, (int)'F', MNU_FIND);
regards,
Hiroshi Saito
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito@inetrt.skcapi.co.jp] > Sent: 28 November 2003 14:55 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 1.0.2 Bundled... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> > > Hi Guys, > > > > I just finished bundling the source tarball, win32 builds and > > Slackware build of v1.0.2. This version is built using the new wx > > snapshot, which has also been added to the ftp mirrors. > > > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any problems - > > porters; please update your release builds (don't forget > that the old > > 1.0 configure script needs a monolithic wx build). > > Hi Dave. > > In a new edition of wxWindows, you also have to apply the way > of REL-1_0_0_PATCHES. > > --- src/ui/ctlSQLBox.cpp.orig Fri Nov 28 23:44:20 2003 > +++ src/ui/ctlSQLBox.cpp Fri Nov 28 23:46:06 2003 Hi Hiroshi That's a pgAdmin patch - I'm not sure what it has to do with the wxWindows code? Regards, Dave
> That's a pgAdmin patch - I'm not sure what it has to do with the > wxWindows code? Oh, It is pgAdmin3-REL-1_0_0_PATCHES Since the specification of the fireworks of stc changed, if it is not made the same as the present pgadmin3-1.1.0dev, a color does not come.. regards, Horoshi Saito
Guys, any votes on what to do about this? I'm inclined to leave it as I don't have another spare half day to re-roll everything at the moment. Thoughts? Regards, Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito@inetrt.skcapi.co.jp] > Sent: 28 November 2003 15:08 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 1.0.2 Bundled... > > > That's a pgAdmin patch - I'm not sure what it has to do with the > > wxWindows code? > > Oh, It is pgAdmin3-REL-1_0_0_PATCHES > > Since the specification of the fireworks of stc changed, if > it is not made the same as the present pgadmin3-1.1.0dev, a > color does not come.. > > regards, > Horoshi Saito >
Dave Page wrote: >Guys, any votes on what to do about this? I'm inclined to leave it as I >don't have another spare half day to re-roll everything at the moment. > >Thoughts? > > It's sad but IMHO we should roll it as it is now. This patch should have been applied much earlier. It's more important to have a non-crashing app than "fireworks", though people will probably complain. Regards, Andreas
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 01:08:19PM -0000, Dave Page wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I just finished bundling the source tarball, win32 builds and Slackware > build of v1.0.2. This version is built using the new wx snapshot, which > has also been added to the ftp mirrors. I find the changelog on the website rather strange. Are all the lines between "v1.0.0" and "v0.9.3devel" what changed between 1.0.0 and 1.0.2? The dates seems to match. Kurt
> -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Roeckx [mailto:Q@ping.be] > Sent: 02 December 2003 23:10 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 1.0.2 Bundled... > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 01:08:19PM -0000, Dave Page wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > I just finished bundling the source tarball, win32 builds and > > Slackware build of v1.0.2. This version is built using the new wx > > snapshot, which has also been added to the ftp mirrors. > > I find the changelog on the website rather strange. Are all > the lines between "v1.0.0" and "v0.9.3devel" what changed > between 1.0.0 and 1.0.2? The dates seems to match. The header is the version to which changes were applied. E.g. V1.0.0 - Fixed fnubar widget Means that we fixed the buggy fnubar widget that was in the 1.0.0 release. Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote: > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Kurt Roeckx [mailto:Q@ping.be] >>Sent: 02 December 2003 23:10 >>To: Dave Page >>Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 1.0.2 Bundled... >> >>On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 01:08:19PM -0000, Dave Page wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Guys, >>> >>>I just finished bundling the source tarball, win32 builds and >>>Slackware build of v1.0.2. This version is built using the new wx >>>snapshot, which has also been added to the ftp mirrors. >>> >>> >>I find the changelog on the website rather strange. Are all >>the lines between "v1.0.0" and "v0.9.3devel" what changed >>between 1.0.0 and 1.0.2? The dates seems to match. >> >> > >The header is the version to which changes were applied. E.g. > >V1.0.0 > >- Fixed fnubar widget > >Means that we fixed the buggy fnubar widget that was in the 1.0.0 >release. > > I must admit that the current CHANGELOG.txt handling is confusing. We're displaying the cvs head version, which doesn't necessary reflect what's in the released version. IMHO we should find a layout that states which change is applied to cvs, which to trunk and which is released. Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 03 December 2003 12:33 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Kurt Roeckx; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 1.0.2 Bundled... > > I must admit that the current CHANGELOG.txt handling is > confusing. We're displaying the cvs head version, which > doesn't necessary reflect what's in the released version. > IMHO we should find a layout that states which change is > applied to cvs, which to trunk and which is released. Agreed, it is a little confusing. Suggestions for improvements anyone? Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>Agreed, it is a little confusing. Suggestions for improvements anyone?
>
>Regards, Dave.
>
>
CHANGELOG.txt could look like this, without release headers:
<li>2003-12-03 AP *** fix connect to MULE_INTERNAL db
<li>2003-12-02 AP fix acl property display
<li>2003-12-02 AP another fix closing Query Tool
<li>2003-12-01 AP add display of superuser context settings
<li>2003-11-30 AP handle covering index for Foreign Keys
<li>2003-11-30 AP fix closing Query Tool while query is running
<li>2003-11-30 AP fix error message when SET client_encoding fails
<li>2003-11-26 AP 1.0.2 fix notice processing for pgQueryThread
<li>2003-11-24 AP refactoring stats/depends: populate on demand
--------------------------^^^^^ denotes the release version,
or *** if this patch is going to trunk also.
Maybe we need release notes too, extracting all lines for released versions.
Regards,
Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 03 December 2003 13:01 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Kurt Roeckx; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 1.0.2 Bundled... > > > CHANGELOG.txt could look like this, without release headers: > > <li>2003-12-03 AP *** fix connect to MULE_INTERNAL db > <li>2003-12-02 AP fix acl property display > <li>2003-12-02 AP another fix closing Query Tool > <li>2003-12-01 AP add display of superuser > context settings > <li>2003-11-30 AP handle covering index for Foreign Keys > <li>2003-11-30 AP fix closing Query Tool while > query is running > <li>2003-11-30 AP fix error message when SET > client_encoding fails > <li>2003-11-26 AP 1.0.2 fix notice processing for > pgQueryThread > <li>2003-11-24 AP refactoring stats/depends: > populate on demand > > --------------------------^^^^^ denotes the release version, > or *** if this patch is going > to trunk also. > > Maybe we need release notes too, extracting all lines for > released versions. Hmm, so blank is trunk only, *** is trunk and stable branch, and <ver> indicates just a stable branch? Or have I misunderstood? Regard,s Dave.
Dave Page wrote: > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] >>Sent: 03 December 2003 13:01 >>To: Dave Page >>Cc: Kurt Roeckx; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 1.0.2 Bundled... >> >> >>CHANGELOG.txt could look like this, without release headers: >> >> <li>2003-12-03 AP *** fix connect to MULE_INTERNAL db >> <li>2003-12-02 AP fix acl property display >> <li>2003-12-02 AP another fix closing Query Tool >> <li>2003-12-01 AP add display of superuser >>context settings >> <li>2003-11-30 AP handle covering index for Foreign Keys >> <li>2003-11-30 AP fix closing Query Tool while >>query is running >> <li>2003-11-30 AP fix error message when SET >>client_encoding fails >> <li>2003-11-26 AP 1.0.2 fix notice processing for >>pgQueryThread >> <li>2003-11-24 AP refactoring stats/depends: >>populate on demand >> >>--------------------------^^^^^ denotes the release version, >> or *** if this patch is going >>to trunk also. >> >>Maybe we need release notes too, extracting all lines for >>released versions. >> >> > >Hmm, so blank is trunk only, *** is trunk and stable branch, and <ver> >indicates just a stable branch? Or have I misunderstood? > > No, that's how it's meant. Regards, Andreas