Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Neil Conway wrote: > That said, I'm not really sure how we can make better use of the beta > period. One obvious improvement would be making the beta announcements > more visible: the obscurity of the beta process on www.postgresql.org > for 7.4 was pretty ridiculous. Does anyone else have a suggestion on > what we can do to produce a more reliable .0 release in less time? Agreed ... here's a thought ... take the download page and break it into two pages: page 1: broken down into "dev" vs "stable" versions, including the date of release ... page 2: when you click on the version you want to download, it brings you to a subpage that is what the main page currently is (with all the flags and such) but instead of just sending ppl to the ftp site itself, actually have the link go to the directory that contains that version on the mirror site ... that first page of the download could contain descriptoins of the variosu releases, and state of releases?
----- Original-Nachricht ----- Von: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> An: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> CC: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Datum: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 05:06 AM Betreff: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Release cycle length > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Neil Conway wrote: > > > That said, I'm not really sure how we can make better use of the beta > > period. One obvious improvement would be making the beta announcements > > more visible: the obscurity of the beta process on www.postgresql.org > > for 7.4 was pretty ridiculous. Does anyone else have a suggestion on > > what we can do to produce a more reliable .0 release in less time? > > Agreed ... here's a thought ... > > take the download page and break it into two pages: > > page 1: broken down into "dev" vs "stable" versions, including the date of > release ... > > page 2: when you click on the version you want to download, it brings you > to a subpage that is what the main page currently is (with all the flags > and such) but instead of just sending ppl to the ftp site itself, actually > have the link go to the directory that contains that version on the mirror > site ... > > that first page of the download could contain descriptoins of the variosu > releases, and state of releases? > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster We could also use some download page similar to the one on httpd.apache.org - first you select a mirror (and one near youhas been preselected) and under it you get a list of possible downloads... might be easier for the users than browsingthrough FTP... Mit freundlichen Grüßen Andreas Grabmüller -- LetzPlay.de | Freemail: http://www.letzplay.de/mail | Forenhosting: http://www.letzplay.de/foren
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 05:13 PM, Andreas Grabmüller wrote: > ----- Original-Nachricht ----- > Von: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> > An: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> > CC: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL Development > <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > Datum: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 05:06 AM > Betreff: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Release cycle length > >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Neil Conway wrote: >> >>> That said, I'm not really sure how we can make better use of the beta >>> period. One obvious improvement would be making the beta >>> announcements >>> more visible: the obscurity of the beta process on www.postgresql.org >>> for 7.4 was pretty ridiculous. Does anyone else have a suggestion on >>> what we can do to produce a more reliable .0 release in less time? >> >> Agreed ... here's a thought ... >> >> take the download page and break it into two pages: >> >> page 1: broken down into "dev" vs "stable" versions, including the >> date of >> release ... >> >> page 2: when you click on the version you want to download, it brings >> you >> to a subpage that is what the main page currently is (with all the >> flags >> and such) but instead of just sending ppl to the ftp site itself, >> actually >> have the link go to the directory that contains that version on the >> mirror >> site ... >> >> that first page of the download could contain descriptoins of the >> variosu >> releases, and state of releases? >> >> ---------------------------(end of >> broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > We could also use some download page similar to the one on > httpd.apache.org - first you select a mirror (and one near you has > been preselected) and under it you get a list of possible downloads... > might be easier for the users than browsing through FTP... From a users' standpoint, do you think the users are looking for a mirror or for software? Maybe put the download first, then a selection of mirrors. I haven't done a lot of downloading, so my perspective might be a little off. And advantage of the mirror > download order would be if people are downloading more than one item at a time. Then they wouldn't have to go back to choose another download. However, once they choose the mirror (and commence the download) a page could come up offering the option to download more from this mirror. Just some thoughts. Michael
----- Original-Nachricht ----- Von: "Michael Glaesemann" <grzm@myrealbox.com> An: <webmaster@letzplay.de> CC: neilc@samurai.com, scrappy@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org Datum: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 01:32 PM Betreff: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Release cycle length > On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 05:13 PM, Andreas Grabmüller wrote: > > > ----- Original-Nachricht ----- > > Von: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> > > An: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> > > CC: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL Development > > <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > > Datum: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 05:06 AM > > Betreff: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Release cycle length > > > >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Neil Conway wrote: > >> > >>> That said, I'm not really sure how we can make better use of the beta > >>> period. One obvious improvement would be making the beta > >>> announcements > >>> more visible: the obscurity of the beta process on www.postgresql.org > >>> for 7.4 was pretty ridiculous. Does anyone else have a suggestion on > >>> what we can do to produce a more reliable .0 release in less time? > >> > >> Agreed ... here's a thought ... > >> > >> take the download page and break it into two pages: > >> > >> page 1: broken down into "dev" vs "stable" versions, including the > >> date of > >> release ... > >> > >> page 2: when you click on the version you want to download, it brings > >> you > >> to a subpage that is what the main page currently is (with all the > >> flags > >> and such) but instead of just sending ppl to the ftp site itself, > >> actually > >> have the link go to the directory that contains that version on the > >> mirror > >> site ... > >> > >> that first page of the download could contain descriptoins of the > >> variosu > >> releases, and state of releases? > >> > >> ---------------------------(end of > >> broadcast)--------------------------- > >> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > > We could also use some download page similar to the one on > > httpd.apache.org - first you select a mirror (and one near you has > > been preselected) and under it you get a list of possible downloads... > > might be easier for the users than browsing through FTP... > > From a users' standpoint, do you think the users are looking for a > mirror or for software? Maybe put the download first, then a selection > of mirrors. I haven't done a lot of downloading, so my perspective > might be a little off. And advantage of the mirror > download order > would be if people are downloading more than one item at a time. Then > they wouldn't have to go back to choose another download. However, once > they choose the mirror (and commence the download) a page could come up > offering the option to download more from this mirror. > > Just some thoughts. > Michael Have you looked at the apache download site? I think it's goot (of course, we can put the mirror chooser under the downloadlinks - it doesn't matter for the functionality as always a different (random?) server gets preselected automatically... Mit freundlichen Grüßen Andreas Grabmüller -- LetzPlay.de | Freemail: http://www.letzplay.de/mail | Forenhosting: http://www.letzplay.de/foren
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 10:32 PM, Andreas Grabmüller wrote: > Have you looked at the apache download site? I think it's goot (of > course, we can put the mirror chooser under the download links - it > doesn't matter for the functionality as always a different (random?) > server gets preselected automatically... Yes, I did. I thought it was pretty good. Nice and clean. And I like how it chooses a server. I don't know how it selects. You could do it by location (nearness to the client ip), server load (weight those with lower server load). I'm sure there are other ways as well. I have seen examples where you choose the download, then the server. I wish I can think of one right now... Michael
Guys, I agree with Neil ... it's not the length of the development part of the cycle, it's the length of the beta testing. I do think an online bug tracker (bugzilla or whatever) would help. I also think that having a person in charge of "testing" would help as well ... no biggie, just someone whose duty it is to e-mail people in the community and ask about the results of testing, especially on the more obscure ports. I think a few e-mail reminders would do a *lot* to speed things up. But I'm not volunteering for this job; managing the release PR is "herding cats" enough! I also contributed to the delays on this release because it took longer than I expected to get the "PR machinery" started. We have a sort of system now, though, and the next release should be easier. HOWEVER, a release cycle of *less than 6 months* would kill the advocacy vols if we wanted the same level of publicity. I do support the idea of "dev" releases. For example, if there was a "dev" release of PG+ARC as soon as Jan is done with it, I have one client would would be willing to test it against a simulated production load on pretty heavy-duty hardware. (Oddly enough, my problem in doing more testing myself is external to PostgreSQL; most of our apps are PHP apps and you can't compile PHP against two different versions of PostgreSQL on the same server. Maybe with User Mode Linux I'll be able to do more testing now.) -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > HOWEVER, a release cycle of *less than 6 months* would kill the advocacy vols > > if we wanted the same level of publicity. > > > > I do support the idea of "dev" releases. For example, if there was a "dev" > > release of PG+ARC as soon as Jan is done with it, I have one client would > > would be willing to test it against a simulated production load on pretty > > heavy-duty hardware. > > Can't we have nightly builds always available? Why can't they just use > the CVS version? We do do nightly builds ... have for years now ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> HOWEVER, a release cycle of *less than 6 months* would kill the advocacy vols > if we wanted the same level of publicity. > > I do support the idea of "dev" releases. For example, if there was a "dev" > release of PG+ARC as soon as Jan is done with it, I have one client would > would be willing to test it against a simulated production load on pretty > heavy-duty hardware. Can't we have nightly builds always available? Why can't they just use the CVS version? > (Oddly enough, my problem in doing more testing myself is external to > PostgreSQL; most of our apps are PHP apps and you can't compile PHP against > two different versions of PostgreSQL on the same server. Maybe with User > Mode Linux I'll be able to do more testing now.) I'd be willing to give testing coordination a go, not sure where I'd begin though. Chris
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 10:47 PM, Michael Glaesemann wrote: > On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 10:32 PM, Andreas Grabmüller wrote: >> Have you looked at the apache download site? I think it's goot (of >> course, we can put the mirror chooser under the download links - it >> doesn't matter for the functionality as always a different (random?) >> server gets preselected automatically... > > Yes, I did. I thought it was pretty good. Nice and clean. And I like > how it chooses a server. I don't know how it selects. You could do it > by location (nearness to the client ip), server load (weight those > with lower server load). I'm sure there are other ways as well. > > I have seen examples where you choose the download, then the server. I > wish I can think of one right now... Sourceforge does it the download > server way. Check out http://awstats.sourceforge.net/#DOWNLOAD You might have to scroll down a bit. The # link didn't work for me. Michael