Thread: Back-branch releases upcoming this week
As has been mentioned a couple times, we're well overdue for updates of
the back branches. Seems like time to get that done, so we'll be
wrapping 8.2.x and up this Thursday for release Monday the 26th.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 01:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > As has been mentioned a couple times, we're well overdue for updates > of the back branches. Seems like time to get that done, so we'll be > wrapping 8.2.x and up this Thursday for release Monday the 26th. Can we also specify a final release version for 8.2? This set will be 8.2.21, and I propose to EOL 8.2 as of 8.2.22. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > As has been mentioned a couple times, we're well overdue for updates of > the back branches. Seems like time to get that done, so we'll be > wrapping 8.2.x and up this Thursday for release Monday the 26th. 8.2 up, including 9.1.1? I'm not sure our QA guys will be able to cope with verification of so many individual installers in that timeframe - 8.2 - 9.0 is hard enough to do in one go. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 09/20/2011 02:46 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 01:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> As has been mentioned a couple times, we're well overdue for updates >> of the back branches. Seems like time to get that done, so we'll be >> wrapping 8.2.x and up this Thursday for release Monday the 26th. > Can we also specify a final release version for 8.2? This set will be > 8.2.21, and I propose to EOL 8.2 as of 8.2.22. > > I don't see why we should deviate from the policy at <http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy>. In all probability, that means there will be one more release for 8.2 after this, but I don't think we need to determine that now. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > On 09/20/2011 02:46 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: >> Can we also specify a final release version for 8.2? This set will be >> 8.2.21, and I propose to EOL 8.2 as of 8.2.22. > I don't see why we should deviate from the policy at > <http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy>. In > all probability, that means there will be one more release for 8.2 after > this, but I don't think we need to determine that now. Per that policy, there will certainly be at least one more 8.2.x release, namely the first one "after December 2011". There could be more than one, if we are pressed into making a set of releases between now and December. I don't think we've yet decided what the policy means if a release happens during the stated calendar month, which seems rather likely this time around in view of our historical record of doing updates roughly quarterly. Should we settle that detail now? That is, does "after December" really mean "in or after December", or did we really mean "after"? regards, tom lane
On 09/20/2011 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I don't think we've yet decided what the policy means if a release > happens during the stated calendar month, which seems rather likely > this time around in view of our historical record of doing updates > roughly quarterly. Should we settle that detail now? That is, > does "after December" really mean "in or after December", or did we > really mean "after"? > > If we really want to get that specific, let's just say that the EOL date is at the end of the designated month. cheers andrew
2011/9/20 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>: > > > On 09/20/2011 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> I don't think we've yet decided what the policy means if a release >> happens during the stated calendar month, which seems rather likely >> this time around in view of our historical record of doing updates >> roughly quarterly. Should we settle that detail now? That is, >> does "after December" really mean "in or after December", or did we >> really mean "after"? >> >> > > If we really want to get that specific, let's just say that the EOL date is > at the end of the designated month. +1 -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> 2011/9/20 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>:
>> On 09/20/2011 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> does "after December" really mean "in or after December", or did we
>>> really mean "after"?
>> If we really want to get that specific, let's just say that the EOL date is
>> at the end of the designated month.
> +1
OK, so "after" really means "after", ie, the last 8.2.x release will be
timestamped 2012-something. Fine with me.
regards, tom lane
2011/9/20 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> 2011/9/20 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>: >>> On 09/20/2011 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> does "after December" really mean "in or after December", or did we >>>> really mean "after"? > >>> If we really want to get that specific, let's just say that the EOL date is >>> at the end of the designated month. > >> +1 > > OK, so "after" really means "after", ie, the last 8.2.x release will be > timestamped 2012-something. Fine with me. It's unfortunate, but it seems to me it's the only interpretation that doesn't risk taking someone by surprise. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> As has been mentioned a couple times, we're well overdue for updates of
>> the back branches. �Seems like time to get that done, so we'll be
>> wrapping 8.2.x and up this Thursday for release Monday the 26th.
> 8.2 up, including 9.1.1? I'm not sure our QA guys will be able to cope
> with verification of so many individual installers in that timeframe -
> 8.2 - 9.0 is hard enough to do in one go.
Well, all the pre-9.1 branches are definitely badly in need of updates.
9.1 maybe could go without at this point, but we do have one crasher bug
and one serious memory leak fixed there, neither new in 9.1. I'd just
as soon not establish a precedent for not releasing the same fixes at
the same time in all branches.
How about we wrap them all, but you could let your team slip the 9.1
update for a day or so if they need more time? It's certainly less
critical than the older branches.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> As has been mentioned a couple times, we're well overdue for updates of >>> the back branches. Seems like time to get that done, so we'll be >>> wrapping 8.2.x and up this Thursday for release Monday the 26th. > >> 8.2 up, including 9.1.1? I'm not sure our QA guys will be able to cope >> with verification of so many individual installers in that timeframe - >> 8.2 - 9.0 is hard enough to do in one go. > > Well, all the pre-9.1 branches are definitely badly in need of updates. > 9.1 maybe could go without at this point, but we do have one crasher bug > and one serious memory leak fixed there, neither new in 9.1. I'd just > as soon not establish a precedent for not releasing the same fixes at > the same time in all branches. > > How about we wrap them all, but you could let your team slip the 9.1 > update for a day or so if they need more time? It's certainly less > critical than the older branches. OK, well we can push the installers much more quickly over the CDN anyway. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> As has been mentioned a couple times, we're well overdue for updates of >>> the back branches. �Seems like time to get that done, so we'll be >>> wrapping 8.2.x and up this Thursday for release Monday the 26th. > >> 8.2 up, including 9.1.1? I'm not sure our QA guys will be able to cope >> with verification of so many individual installers in that timeframe - >> 8.2 - 9.0 is hard enough to do in one go. > > Well, all the pre-9.1 branches are definitely badly in need of updates. > 9.1 maybe could go without at this point, but we do have one crasher bug > and one serious memory leak fixed there, neither new in 9.1. I'd just > as soon not establish a precedent for not releasing the same fixes at > the same time in all branches. > > How about we wrap them all, but you could let your team slip the 9.1 > update for a day or so if they need more time? It's certainly less > critical than the older branches. I would prefer that all branches have synchronized patch releases as they seem to have had in the past, and that the latest production is included, 9.1.1 in this case, even if its change set is more minor. -- Darren Duncan
On tis, 2011-09-20 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I don't think we've yet decided what the policy means if a release > happens during the stated calendar month, which seems rather likely > this time around in view of our historical record of doing updates > roughly quarterly. Should we settle that detail now? That is, > does "after December" really mean "in or after December", or did we > really mean "after"? The policy states that we will support branches until that time, which should reasonably include the whole time period stated. That is, 8.2 is supported until December 31. But it does not say that we are obliged to make another release after the EOL with all the patches that have accumulated between the previous release and the EOL. And it certainly does not say that we are obliged to keep patching after EOL until that next release happens. It does say that that would "normally" happen, but it doesn't have to. Previously, we have argued that we should make another release because the previous patching effort would otherwise have been wasted. Maybe so. But let's keep this in perspective. If we made another release on December 13, we shouldn't have to keep patching after that, unless there is an emergency.