Thread: CVS in docs
Do references to the CVS need removing now that everything is on GIT? Is the CVS page still relevant? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/anoncvs.html (cvs.sgml) This refers to that page and the anoncvs web interface: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/release.html (release.sgml) The installation page talks about building from a CVS tree: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/install-requirements.html (installation.sgml) HOT (Heap-Only Typles) in acronyms (acronyms.sgml) links to anoncvs, so maybe point it to http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=blob_plain;f=src/backend/access/heap/README.HOT;hb=HEAD NLS info for translators refers to CVS: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/nls-translator.html (nls.sgml) Bug reporting mentions CVS: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/bug-reporting.html (problems.sgml) -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935
Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
> Do references to the CVS need removing now that everything is on GIT?
The chapter about CVS obviously needs to be replaced. I was talking
to Magnus about that earlier, and we both felt that that needs to be
back-patched, if only so that there are non-obsolete repository URLs
in the next back-branch updates. I'm not sure that we need the
tutorial-ish description of how to do checkouts etc, but at the least
we need the URLs.
A quick grep suggests that there are a dozen or two other passing
references to CVS in docs and comments, which'd be worth cleaning
up in HEAD, but probably not worth back-patching.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 00:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes: >> Do references to the CVS need removing now that everything is on GIT? > > The chapter about CVS obviously needs to be replaced. I was talking > to Magnus about that earlier, and we both felt that that needs to be > back-patched, if only so that there are non-obsolete repository URLs > in the next back-branch updates. I'm not sure that we need the > tutorial-ish description of how to do checkouts etc, but at the least > we need the URLs. Here's a suggested patch for this. Most of it is just taking out the cvs documentation since most of the git info was in there already. I also moved some notes around. Finally, I took the liberty to rip out the <appendixinfo> part listing specific authors. Most of what they did is gone now anyway, and we don't have those entries on other files. > A quick grep suggests that there are a dozen or two other passing > references to CVS in docs and comments, which'd be worth cleaning > up in HEAD, but probably not worth back-patching. Agreed. What about the messages in configure? "configure:*** Without Bison you will not be able to build PostgreSQL from CVS nor" coming out of config/*.m4? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Attachment
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 00:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> A quick grep suggests that there are a dozen or two other passing
>> references to CVS in docs and comments, which'd be worth cleaning
>> up in HEAD, but probably not worth back-patching.
> Agreed.
> What about the messages in configure?
> "configure:*** Without Bison you will not be able to build PostgreSQL
> from CVS nor"
I was lumping those in the "not worth back-patching" category, but
if you're excited about them, feel free to back-patch.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 15:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 00:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> A quick grep suggests that there are a dozen or two other passing >>> references to CVS in docs and comments, which'd be worth cleaning >>> up in HEAD, but probably not worth back-patching. > >> Agreed. > >> What about the messages in configure? >> "configure:*** Without Bison you will not be able to build PostgreSQL >> from CVS nor" > > I was lumping those in the "not worth back-patching" category, but > if you're excited about them, feel free to back-patch. Ok. I'll see - I need to get an old version of autoconf going too - I somehow managed to wipe the one I have, and Ubuntu ships with a different version :-) I take the lack of comment on the patch itself as silent approval, so I'll go look at backporting it soon. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 22 September 2010 15:07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 15:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 00:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> A quick grep suggests that there are a dozen or two other passing >>>> references to CVS in docs and comments, which'd be worth cleaning >>>> up in HEAD, but probably not worth back-patching. >> >>> Agreed. >> >>> What about the messages in configure? >>> "configure:*** Without Bison you will not be able to build PostgreSQL >>> from CVS nor" >> >> I was lumping those in the "not worth back-patching" category, but >> if you're excited about them, feel free to back-patch. > > Ok. I'll see - I need to get an old version of autoconf going too - I > somehow managed to wipe the one I have, and Ubuntu ships with a > different version :-) > > I take the lack of comment on the patch itself as silent approval, so > I'll go look at backporting it soon. I don't see any mention of redirecting the Heap-Only Tuples glossary reference link. Is that staying as it is? -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 16:10, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: > On 22 September 2010 15:07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 15:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 00:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>>> A quick grep suggests that there are a dozen or two other passing >>>>> references to CVS in docs and comments, which'd be worth cleaning >>>>> up in HEAD, but probably not worth back-patching. >>> >>>> Agreed. >>> >>>> What about the messages in configure? >>>> "configure:*** Without Bison you will not be able to build PostgreSQL >>>> from CVS nor" >>> >>> I was lumping those in the "not worth back-patching" category, but >>> if you're excited about them, feel free to back-patch. >> >> Ok. I'll see - I need to get an old version of autoconf going too - I >> somehow managed to wipe the one I have, and Ubuntu ships with a >> different version :-) >> >> I take the lack of comment on the patch itself as silent approval, so >> I'll go look at backporting it soon. > > I don't see any mention of redirecting the Heap-Only Tuples glossary > reference link. Is that staying as it is? Ah, good point. No, let's change that. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> <!-- appendixes -->
> <!entity contacts SYSTEM "contacts.sgml">
> -<!entity cvs SYSTEM "cvs.sgml">
> +<!entity sourcerepo SYSTEM "sourcerepo.sgml">
> <!entity datetime SYSTEM "datetime.sgml">
> <!entity docguide SYSTEM "docguide.sgml">
> <!entity errcodes SYSTEM "errcodes.sgml">
Please keep the filelist entries in alphabetical order.
> <!-- we need a file containing the CVS logs for each release, and something
> like the SVN web interface that groups commits but has branches -->
This comment should be updated, or deleted entirely.
I didn't attempt to read the changes in sourcerepo.sgml ... as you well
know, I find diff -u format utterly unreadable for more than one-liner
changes.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:35, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> <!-- appendixes --> >> <!entity contacts SYSTEM "contacts.sgml"> >> -<!entity cvs SYSTEM "cvs.sgml"> >> +<!entity sourcerepo SYSTEM "sourcerepo.sgml"> >> <!entity datetime SYSTEM "datetime.sgml"> >> <!entity docguide SYSTEM "docguide.sgml"> >> <!entity errcodes SYSTEM "errcodes.sgml"> > > Please keep the filelist entries in alphabetical order. Ack. >> <!-- we need a file containing the CVS logs for each release, and something >> like the SVN web interface that groups commits but has branches --> > > This comment should be updated, or deleted entirely. Given that I don't even understand what it means and what it does there, I deleted it :) > I didn't attempt to read the changes in sourcerepo.sgml ... as you well > know, I find diff -u format utterly unreadable for more than one-liner > changes. Sorry about that. It's basically just deleting all the references to cvs - the git chapter was there already - and moving the info about bison/flex/perl requirements to the first section. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 19:29, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:35, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> I didn't attempt to read the changes in sourcerepo.sgml ... as you well >> know, I find diff -u format utterly unreadable for more than one-liner >> changes. > > Sorry about that. It's basically just deleting all the references to > cvs - the git chapter was there already - and moving the info about > bison/flex/perl requirements to the first section. Looking at backpatching this, I realized the major changes we made to it a while ago was only backpatched to 8.4. 8.3 and earlier has the much more complex cvs instructoins. I suggest just wiping those and replacing them with the same git instructions we have now. Objections? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mié sep 22 13:29:00 -0400 2010: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:35, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > >> <!-- we need a file containing the CVS logs for each release, and something > >> like the SVN web interface that groups commits but has branches --> > > > > This comment should be updated, or deleted entirely. > > Given that I don't even understand what it means and what it does > there, I deleted it :) I think this is about having some sort of pointer to a ChangeLog or similar resource (so that someone interested can see the commits for each branch). I didn't look at your patch, but if you provide a pointer to the Git "summary", that seems enough. BTW now that they are pestered with the PgFoundry commit messages, the pgsql-committers archive do not seem a very useful resource anymore. The Git "shortlog" seems much better, so maybe we should point to that. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Looking at backpatching this, I realized the major changes we made to
> it a while ago was only backpatched to 8.4. 8.3 and earlier has the
> much more complex cvs instructoins.
> I suggest just wiping those and replacing them with the same git
> instructions we have now. Objections?
Works for me.
regards, tom lane
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> BTW now that they are pestered with the PgFoundry commit messages, the
> pgsql-committers archive do not seem a very useful resource anymore.
> The Git "shortlog" seems much better, so maybe we should point to that.
Hmm ... do we have a search engine for the shortlog? Anyway, anybody
who knows git at all will already know about looking at the git log.
I think the separate pointer to the committers archives is still of
use here.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> Looking at backpatching this, I realized the major changes we made to >> it a while ago was only backpatched to 8.4. 8.3 and earlier has the >> much more complex cvs instructoins. > >> I suggest just wiping those and replacing them with the same git >> instructions we have now. Objections? > > Works for me. Applied. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> I suggest just wiping those and replacing them with the same git
>>> instructions we have now. Objections?
>>
>> Works for me.
> Applied.
Uh, why only back to 8.2?
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>>> I suggest just wiping those and replacing them with the same git >>>> instructions we have now. Objections? >>> >>> Works for me. > >> Applied. > > Uh, why only back to 8.2? Based on the "the others are discontinued just over a month from now anyway"... BTW, there are a ton of conflicts backpatching each step. I actually had a conflict with a $PostgreSQL$ tag once in the Makefile going back to 8.4 - so that does happen. But only once - the rest is all "proper" conflicts. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Uh, why only back to 8.2?
> Based on the "the others are discontinued just over a month from now anyway"...
Yeah, but they will each have a final release. Don't we want to have
the updated info in the final releases? I don't care about the
incidental CVS mentions, but replacing cvs.sgml with that new chapter
seems worth the trouble.
> BTW, there are a ton of conflicts backpatching each step.
Welcome to the fun of back-patching. Did you get any leverage from
cherry-picking, or did it seem to be just as stupid as plain "patch"?
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:37, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Uh, why only back to 8.2? > >> Based on the "the others are discontinued just over a month from now anyway"... > > Yeah, but they will each have a final release. Don't we want to have > the updated info in the final releases? I don't care about the > incidental CVS mentions, but replacing cvs.sgml with that new chapter > seems worth the trouble. Hmm. yeah. I'll look at doing it back to 7.4 then. I'll do the incidental mentions as well if they merge cleanly :-) >> BTW, there are a ton of conflicts backpatching each step. > > Welcome to the fun of back-patching. Did you get any leverage from Oh, it's not the first time. I just wanted to make note that one, but only one, conflicted on the $PostgreSQL$ tag. > cherry-picking, or did it seem to be just as stupid as plain "patch"? It *seemed* smarter. But I didn't try to backpatchthe same thing both ways, so it's hard to tell for sure. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > BTW now that they are pestered with the PgFoundry commit messages, the > pgsql-committers archive do not seem a very useful resource anymore. > The Git "shortlog" seems much better, so maybe we should point to that. > I missed why that happened in the first place, but based on being a subscriber isn't that something that should be split onto another list regardless? The chatter added to pgsql-committers from everything there really seems inappropriate. A new pgsql-pgfoundry for all those instead perhaps? -- Greg Smith, 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us Author, "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance" Pre-ordering at: https://www.packtpub.com/postgresql-9-0-high-performance/book
Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> BTW now that they are pestered with the PgFoundry commit messages, the
>> pgsql-committers archive do not seem a very useful resource anymore.
>> The Git "shortlog" seems much better, so maybe we should point to that.
> I missed why that happened in the first place, but based on being a
> subscriber isn't that something that should be split onto another list
> regardless?
IIRC, it was essentially a political decision, meant to help make
pgfoundry authors feel more like a part of the core project. Personally
I filter the non-core commits separately anyway...
regards, tom lane