Thread: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add: > o Add SQLSTATE severit yto PGconn return status > >

> > How about we move it to the wiki. AFAIK we can still lock it down to who
> > can edit it if we want to
> 
> You should confirm you can get the editing granularity you want before 
> making too many plans here if this is important.  The features for locking 
> down things in Mediawiki are very limited.
> 
> The Wiki philosophy here is that you could revert quite a few bad changes 
> in the time it would take you to lock it down so those bad changes could 
> never happen in the first place.  Last time I checked vandalism and bad 
> edits were not a problem on the developer's wiki.

It's not. And I personally don't think it would be a problem. But I think it'll be a lot easier to sell to those who
prefertextfiles in cvs (hello bruce!) if we can.
 

/Magnus

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 
> > > How about we move it to the wiki. AFAIK we can still lock it down to who
> > > can edit it if we want to
> >
> > You should confirm you can get the editing granularity you want before
> > making too many plans here if this is important.  The features for locking
> > down things in Mediawiki are very limited.
> >
> > The Wiki philosophy here is that you could revert quite a few bad changes
> > in the time it would take you to lock it down so those bad changes could
> > never happen in the first place.  Last time I checked vandalism and bad
> > edits were not a problem on the developer's wiki.
> 
> It's not. And I personally don't think it would be a problem.
> But I think it'll be a lot easier to sell to those who prefer
> textfiles in cvs (hello bruce!) if we can.

I don't care who edits it myself, though I can say I get perhaps one
patch a year to the TODO list file --- usually I just an email saying
remove that item or something.

-- Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:

> > It's not. And I personally don't think it would be a problem.
> > But I think it'll be a lot easier to sell to those who prefer
> > textfiles in cvs (hello bruce!) if we can.
> 
> I don't care who edits it myself, though I can say I get perhaps one
> patch a year to the TODO list file --- usually I just an email saying
> remove that item or something.

Personally I've wished to enter something in the TODO list myself but
refrained because it was "your area".  Having a derived HTML page
doesn't make me feel any better -- how should I generate it to ensure
that my output is equal to yours?

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 
> > > It's not. And I personally don't think it would be a problem.
> > > But I think it'll be a lot easier to sell to those who prefer
> > > textfiles in cvs (hello bruce!) if we can.
> > 
> > I don't care who edits it myself, though I can say I get perhaps one
> > patch a year to the TODO list file --- usually I just an email saying
> > remove that item or something.
> 
> Personally I've wished to enter something in the TODO list myself but
> refrained because it was "your area".  Having a derived HTML page
> doesn't make me feel any better -- how should I generate it to ensure
> that my output is equal to yours?

If you change the text file, I will see the CVS update and update the
HTML --- I will never lose a change because my CVS sees your changes.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:27:06AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > 
> > > > It's not. And I personally don't think it would be a problem.
> > > > But I think it'll be a lot easier to sell to those who prefer
> > > > textfiles in cvs (hello bruce!) if we can.
> > > 
> > > I don't care who edits it myself, though I can say I get perhaps one
> > > patch a year to the TODO list file --- usually I just an email saying
> > > remove that item or something.
> > 
> > Personally I've wished to enter something in the TODO list myself but
> > refrained because it was "your area".  Having a derived HTML page
> > doesn't make me feel any better -- how should I generate it to ensure
> > that my output is equal to yours?
> 
> If you change the text file, I will see the CVS update and update the
> HTML --- I will never lose a change because my CVS sees your changes.

That seems like a lot of extra work that should be unnecessary.

I asked before for general reactions, so I will now turn that into a formal proposal:

Let's move the TODO list to the wiki. Bruce still retains "ownership" of it
and will certainly be doing most of the editing. But people who work on
individual items can add/remove items and details as needed directly on the
wiki as necessary. 

Those who still need daily updates can easily grab an RSS feed off the
wiki, or use the watch feature (disclaimer: I haven't used the watch
feature myself, but I'm told it should work).

Can we get a soundoff on this? Good idea, bad idea?


(if we decide to do it, we'll have to migrate what's there now, of course.
But I'm sure we can find volounteer(s) to help with that so Bruce doesn't
have to do all the work.)

//Magnus

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > If you change the text file, I will see the CVS update and update the
> > HTML --- I will never lose a change because my CVS sees your changes.
> 
> That seems like a lot of extra work that should be unnecessary.
> 
> I asked before for general reactions, so I will now turn that into a formal proposal:
> 
> Let's move the TODO list to the wiki. Bruce still retains "ownership" of it
> and will certainly be doing most of the editing. But people who work on
> individual items can add/remove items and details as needed directly on the
> wiki as necessary. 
> 
> Those who still need daily updates can easily grab an RSS feed off the
> wiki, or use the watch feature (disclaimer: I haven't used the watch
> feature myself, but I'm told it should work).
> 
> Can we get a soundoff on this? Good idea, bad idea?
> 
> 
> (if we decide to do it, we'll have to migrate what's there now, of course.
> But I'm sure we can find volounteer(s) to help with that so Bruce doesn't
> have to do all the work.)

We need it to do a few things:
o  We need to be able to pull a text and HTML copies for tarballso  Edits have to be quick and easyo  I have to be able
tomake new sections, and move existing   items around and between sectionso  I need to be able to add URLs for itemso
Ineed subsections and sub-subsections
 

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:03:13AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > If you change the text file, I will see the CVS update and update the
> > > HTML --- I will never lose a change because my CVS sees your changes.
> > 
> > That seems like a lot of extra work that should be unnecessary.
> > 
> > I asked before for general reactions, so I will now turn that into a formal proposal:
> > 
> > Let's move the TODO list to the wiki. Bruce still retains "ownership" of it
> > and will certainly be doing most of the editing. But people who work on
> > individual items can add/remove items and details as needed directly on the
> > wiki as necessary. 
> > 
> > Those who still need daily updates can easily grab an RSS feed off the
> > wiki, or use the watch feature (disclaimer: I haven't used the watch
> > feature myself, but I'm told it should work).
> > 
> > Can we get a soundoff on this? Good idea, bad idea?
> > 
> > 
> > (if we decide to do it, we'll have to migrate what's there now, of course.
> > But I'm sure we can find volounteer(s) to help with that so Bruce doesn't
> > have to do all the work.)
> 
> We need it to do a few things:
> 
>     o  We need to be able to pull a text and HTML copies for tarballs

That should be doable without too much work. I would, however, like to open
a second discussion on wether we actually *need* it. But that's a different
discussion than this - if we do need it, we can make that happen.


>     o  Edits have to be quick and easy

That's the whole idea of a wiki. I don't personally love the markup
language, but for the simple kind of stuff that the TODO list deals with
(markup-wise), it's very easy to use.


>     o  I have to be able to make new sections, and move existing
>        items around and between sections

Trivial - again, what a wiki does best. Look at for example
http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Replication%2C_Clustering%2C_and_Connection_Pooling
for a page taht has a bunch of different sections. It uses tables in some
and lists in some etc, but it shold give you an idea of how simple it is to
craete sections.


>     o  I need to be able to add URLs for items

You maen links to external sites? Also trivial. Again, what a wiki is
designed for more or less.


>     o  I need subsections and sub-subsections

Should be doable either as wiki sections or as bullet-lists.

//Magnus

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Let's move the TODO list to the wiki.

> We need it to do a few things:

>     o  We need to be able to pull a text and HTML copies for tarballs

Why?  Even if we think the TODO list needs to appear in tarballs (which
is hardly a given if you ask me), why the heck does it have to be in two
formats?  AFAIK the only reason we bother with an HTML version is to
have something to put on the website, and this proposal supersedes that
aspect of things.  ISTM a plain-text copy would be plenty.

Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy
and forgot about shipping it in tarballs.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Let's move the TODO list to the wiki.
> 
> > We need it to do a few things:
> 
> >     o  We need to be able to pull a text and HTML copies for tarballs
> 
> Why?  Even if we think the TODO list needs to appear in tarballs (which
> is hardly a given if you ask me), why the heck does it have to be in two
> formats?  AFAIK the only reason we bother with an HTML version is to
> have something to put on the website, and this proposal supersedes that
> aspect of things.  ISTM a plain-text copy would be plenty.

Fine with me.

> Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy
> and forgot about shipping it in tarballs.

The problem with not shipping the TODO file at all is that TODO gives
users a list of all known bugs/missing features in that major release. 
The current web version very soon doesn't match the major release they
are running, and I am unsure we want to have historical links for every
major release.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy
>> and forgot about shipping it in tarballs.

> The problem with not shipping the TODO file at all is that TODO gives
> users a list of all known bugs/missing features in that major release. 

This seems to me to be nonsense.  You've never maintained the
back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway
--- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release.

In any case I've always thought that the TODO was developer-oriented
documentation, not something users would read.  If there's a shortcoming
in a feature, it ought to be documented in the SGML manual.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy
> >> and forgot about shipping it in tarballs.
> 
> > The problem with not shipping the TODO file at all is that TODO gives
> > users a list of all known bugs/missing features in that major release. 
> 
> This seems to me to be nonsense.  You've never maintained the
> back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway
> --- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release.

It is a best effort with our limited resources.

> In any case I've always thought that the TODO was developer-oriented
> documentation, not something users would read.  If there's a shortcoming
> in a feature, it ought to be documented in the SGML manual.

It typically isn't, except for major issues, again due to lack of
resources.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:03:13AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> We need it to do a few things:

Actually, the part of the current process that a wiki would fail to
reproduce is the emails that Bruce sends out about TODO changes.
Do we still want those, and if so what would we do about it?

Personally I think the current mails are overly verbose --- in 
particular, quoting (one of the) referenced email messages is
good for nothing except archive-bloat.  However going over to
nothing at all might be too far in the other direction.
        regards, tom lane

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:36:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:03:13AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> We need it to do a few things:
> 
> Actually, the part of the current process that a wiki would fail to
> reproduce is the emails that Bruce sends out about TODO changes.
> Do we still want those, and if so what would we do about it?

Bruce still replies to all emails saying "Added to TODO". So you get *two*
copies of it every time this time - once on -hackers, -general or whatever,
and one on -committers.

You will also be able to subscruibe to updates on the wiki. The preferrable
way (at least for me, and I'm sure for a lot of folks) using RSS, but also
using email.

//Magnus

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>  > This seems to me to be nonsense.  You've never maintained the
>  > back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway
>  > --- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release.
>
>  It is a best effort with our limited resources.

Should we outsource it? It is user-facing :-p

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:03:13AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> We need it to do a few things:
> 
> Actually, the part of the current process that a wiki would fail to
> reproduce is the emails that Bruce sends out about TODO changes.
> Do we still want those, and if so what would we do about it?

Magnus said you can subscribe to a changes email, or get an RSS feed of
changes.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >  > This seems to me to be nonsense.  You've never maintained the
> >  > back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway
> >  > --- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release.
> >
> >  It is a best effort with our limited resources.
> 
> Should we outsource it? It is user-facing :-p

If it was a service we could use for free, we could consider it.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:10:27 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>  It is a best effort with our limited resources.
> > 
> > Should we outsource it? It is user-facing :-p
> 
> If it was a service we could use for free, we could consider it.

https://launchpad.net/
http://www.sourceforge.net/

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- -- 
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate     PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of
Dolphins

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH2AW0ATb/zqfZUUQRAkLUAKCKbvUEQtG/KT8XrhrkB0/hdHUXqQCgnDTp
VTfGZSIFftAJqo3PSP4XOhE=
=N3tJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:10:27 -0400 (EDT)
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >  It is a best effort with our limited resources.
> > > 
> > > Should we outsource it? It is user-facing :-p
> > 
> > If it was a service we could use for free, we could consider it.
> 
> https://launchpad.net/
> http://www.sourceforge.net/

Those are a step backward --- they don't have the functionality we
currently have, but have more functionality in other areas.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:39:06 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

> > > If it was a service we could use for free, we could consider it.
> > 
> > https://launchpad.net/
> > http://www.sourceforge.net/
> 
> Those are a step backward --- they don't have the functionality we
> currently have, but have more functionality in other areas.

First it was a joke. However I would be curious to know which features
you think they don't have. If nothing else Launchpad is a customer and
I can give them some feedback.

Joshua D. Drake





- -- 
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate     PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of
Dolphins

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFH2AkAATb/zqfZUUQRAg99AJjaI+Ozx+LPRPezEpXLEgVeZyrXAJ962Jsa
khsonJQJfNYzmoYbOTHEsQ==
=i49i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:39:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 
> > > > If it was a service we could use for free, we could consider it.
> > > 
> > > https://launchpad.net/
> > > http://www.sourceforge.net/
> > 
> > Those are a step backward --- they don't have the functionality we
> > currently have, but have more functionality in other areas.
> 
> First it was a joke. However I would be curious to know which features
> you think they don't have. If nothing else Launchpad is a customer and
> I can give them some feedback.

Probably the biggest missing feature for the TODO is the ability to
summarize, group into labeled sections and subsections, and the ability
to move items around, with URL links to more detail.  Effectively that
is all the TODO list is.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Probably the biggest missing feature for the TODO is the ability to
> summarize, group into labeled sections and subsections, and the ability
> to move items around, with URL links to more detail.  Effectively that
> is all the TODO list is.

Oh, like a Wiki page.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy
> > >> and forgot about shipping it in tarballs.
> > 
> > > The problem with not shipping the TODO file at all is that TODO gives
> > > users a list of all known bugs/missing features in that major release. 
> > 
> > This seems to me to be nonsense.  You've never maintained the
> > back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway
> > --- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release.
> 
> It is a best effort with our limited resources.
> 
> > In any case I've always thought that the TODO was developer-oriented
> > documentation, not something users would read.  If there's a shortcoming
> > in a feature, it ought to be documented in the SGML manual.
> 
> It typically isn't, except for major issues, again due to lack of
> resources.

I think you will have to search for a long time to find anybody who
actually uses it like that. I'm willing to bet that well over 95% of the
people who read the TODO only read it on the website. (potentially
excluding the actual patch-contributors, but those aren't included in your
argument anyway)

//Magnus

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy
> > > >> and forgot about shipping it in tarballs.
> > > 
> > > > The problem with not shipping the TODO file at all is that TODO gives
> > > > users a list of all known bugs/missing features in that major release. 
> > > 
> > > This seems to me to be nonsense.  You've never maintained the
> > > back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway
> > > --- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release.
> > 
> > It is a best effort with our limited resources.
> > 
> > > In any case I've always thought that the TODO was developer-oriented
> > > documentation, not something users would read.  If there's a shortcoming
> > > in a feature, it ought to be documented in the SGML manual.
> > 
> > It typically isn't, except for major issues, again due to lack of
> > resources.
> 
> I think you will have to search for a long time to find anybody who
> actually uses it like that. I'm willing to bet that well over 95% of the
> people who read the TODO only read it on the website. (potentially
> excluding the actual patch-contributors, but those aren't included in your
> argument anyway)

We can always remove it from the tarball and see if anyone complains.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 02:10:08PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > >> Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy
> > > > >> and forgot about shipping it in tarballs.
> > > > 
> > > > > The problem with not shipping the TODO file at all is that TODO gives
> > > > > users a list of all known bugs/missing features in that major release. 
> > > > 
> > > > This seems to me to be nonsense.  You've never maintained the
> > > > back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway
> > > > --- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release.
> > > 
> > > It is a best effort with our limited resources.
> > > 
> > > > In any case I've always thought that the TODO was developer-oriented
> > > > documentation, not something users would read.  If there's a shortcoming
> > > > in a feature, it ought to be documented in the SGML manual.
> > > 
> > > It typically isn't, except for major issues, again due to lack of
> > > resources.
> > 
> > I think you will have to search for a long time to find anybody who
> > actually uses it like that. I'm willing to bet that well over 95% of the
> > people who read the TODO only read it on the website. (potentially
> > excluding the actual patch-contributors, but those aren't included in your
> > argument anyway)
> 
> We can always remove it from the tarball and see if anyone complains.

I think that's a "reasonable default". If we do get complains, we'll figure
a way to get it back. It's not hard to get info out of a wiki.

//Magnus