Thread: Ready for RC2 I guess...
OK, the fix for Trond's autoconf issue is in. I think we could roll
RC2 now.
Are we in docs freeze yet? I'm working on an overhaul of the plperl
chapter of the programmer's guide, and plan to commit it sometime
today or tomorrow. Unless I'm told not to.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > OK, the fix for Trond's autoconf issue is in. I think we could roll > RC2 now. Perl fix? :) (the ifdef cturner suggested should make it work on both) -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød) writes:
> Perl fix? :) (the ifdef cturner suggested should make it work on both)
I didn't see anything from cturner on that ... perhaps it's hung up
in the approval queue?
regards, tom lane
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> Are we in docs freeze yet? I'm working on an overhaul of the plperl
>> chapter of the programmer's guide, and plan to commit it sometime
>> today or tomorrow. Unless I'm told not to.
> Well, a "release candidate" is "no more changes unless it's broken".
True for code, but we have not in the past applied that standard to
docs.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane writes: > OK, the fix for Trond's autoconf issue is in. I think we could roll > RC2 now. > > Are we in docs freeze yet? I'm working on an overhaul of the plperl > chapter of the programmer's guide, and plan to commit it sometime > today or tomorrow. Unless I'm told not to. Well, a "release candidate" is "no more changes unless it's broken". An "overhaul" is probably better left for the next minor release. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Tom Lane writes: > > Well, a "release candidate" is "no more changes unless it's broken". > > True for code, but we have not in the past applied that standard to > docs. In the past, the docs were frozen two weeks before the release candidate so that Thomas Lockhart could prepare them for publication. This time we've been more relaxed, but I still think we have to stop somewhere. In particular, a few days of rest is needed even for the docs, because: * To make sure the documents are built at least once in full so they are picked up when the release is built. * To make sure the documents still build on whatever toolchain postgresql.org is running. (There are occasional bugs in processors and stylesheets.) * To make sure everything looks OK when processed with whatever stylesheet version postgresql.org uses. * To make sure everything is spell-checked and edited for mistakes. * To build the final edition of the man pages. * To build printed versions and avoid post-release editing because of certain "web-only" constructs or other things that don't work in the print releases. Some things to think about. If you think your changes don't affect these issues, go ahead, but "overhaul" leaves me wondering. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> In the past, the docs were frozen two weeks before the release candidate
> so that Thomas Lockhart could prepare them for publication. This time
> we've been more relaxed, but I still think we have to stop somewhere.
Sure. But I haven't yet heard Thomas ask for a docs freeze, so (unless
I missed it) I would think I could still get some work done.
regards, tom lane
Ummmm, actually ... Thomas generally freezes the docs two weeks before the *release*, not the release candidate ... we've always accepted docs changes up to the very last possible minute ... On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > In the past, the docs were frozen two weeks before the release candidate > > so that Thomas Lockhart could prepare them for publication. This time > > we've been more relaxed, but I still think we have to stop somewhere. > > Sure. But I haven't yet heard Thomas ask for a docs freeze, so (unless > I missed it) I would think I could still get some work done. > > regards, tom lane >
Okay, she's rolled if someone wants to take a quick look at it ... unless something immediate blows with this one, will do an announce tomorrow night ... On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Ummmm, actually ... Thomas generally freezes the docs two weeks before the > *release*, not the release candidate ... we've always accepted docs > changes up to the very last possible minute ... > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > > In the past, the docs were frozen two weeks before the release candidate > > > so that Thomas Lockhart could prepare them for publication. This time > > > we've been more relaxed, but I still think we have to stop somewhere. > > > > Sure. But I haven't yet heard Thomas ask for a docs freeze, so (unless > > I missed it) I would think I could still get some work done. > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Okay, she's rolled if someone wants to take a quick look at it ...
tarfile looks okay from here.
regards, tom lane