Thread: Fair large change to contributors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will
welcome feedback. The specifics are below:
* Removes developers/bios
* Creates community/contributors
* Removes core (per Bruce M)
* Adds Active Contributors
* Adds Occasional Contributors
The following DML needs to be run as well:
update developers_types set sortorder = 1 where type = 3;
update developers set type = '3' where type = '1';
update developers_types set extrainfo = 'The following individuals are active contributors to the project. You will
generallyfind them active on the lists, working on features or supporting the PostgreSQL.org infrastructure.' where
type= '3';
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVNrLATb/zqfZUUQRAvq2AKCNJTbzFVMWJL2MrpR/As/d9N3ToACgkzM7
bVYFNeRZJE3GjSw3GmfS1pQ=
=/08r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Monday, December 03, 2007 20:42:48 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello, > > O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will > welcome feedback. The specifics are below: > > * Removes developers/bios > * Creates community/contributors > * Removes core (per Bruce M) So, if core is taken out, how do ppl know who is on core? Your definition of Core "I have always considered core a steering committee type of deal." is right on the ball ... when it comes time to do releases, beta's etc ... all that is first discussed on Core before going to anywhere else ... Not sure where Bruce gets his "mostly for confidential company contacts and discipline.", but I'm not sure when the last time was we dealt with any 'discipline', nor any 'confidential company contacts' *shrug* Actually, for the later, I'd say Greatbridge was the only time we've dealt with *that* ... - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHVN374QvfyHIvDvMRAgbHAKCQ8j/PJOJubfWlrXjSfdLOV0PfegCbBB1Q qPiVO1YXWxHQwGcusGsAguQ= =ui/B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> * Removes core (per Bruce M)
Say what?
regards, tom lane
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:56:27 -0400
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
> > * Removes developers/bios
> > * Creates community/contributors
> > * Removes core (per Bruce M)
>
> So, if core is taken out, how do ppl know who is on core?
Well I assumed we would update the specific contributor description,
which can be done from a web interface as I understand... so for you it
would be:
Core member, helps coordinates the entire effort, helps administer the
postgresql.org websites, mailing lists, ftp site, and source code
repository.
> Not sure where Bruce gets his "mostly for confidential company
> contacts and discipline.", but I'm not sure when the last time was we
Well I can see the confidential company contact. I get that too as the
Liaison. Companies will contact me "confidentially" about possibly
helping the project. I also *know* that Berkus gets those types of
contacts.
> dealt with any 'discipline', nor any 'confidential company contacts'
> *shrug* Actually, for the later, I'd say Greatbridge was the only
> time we've dealt with *that* ...
Depends on exactly what he means by discipline. Core finally stepping
up on the naming argument could fall into that.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVOOFATb/zqfZUUQRAgicAJ0b2hV5H2z4DgxXds03g+7kKLf5/QCfclFT
k7E3417fgjm/5UXfeH+8tjc=
=hU7P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:09:41 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > * Removes core (per Bruce M)
>
> Say what?
heh... It removes the "Core" categorization from the contributors and
just places them directly into the Active Contributors. Per my response
to Marc Core would thus be designated from the description.
/note I am not arguing this change just stating what I did. I made the
change because Bruce brought it up and it makes the page a lot simpler.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the
> postmaster
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVOSpATb/zqfZUUQRAkHrAJ9VQS9vlEJuL9PhxBn/9vKuPNIL6wCeKGvT
nAFsyPEc6eo/fhCy8Ikrx7s=
=AAXn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Monday, December 03, 2007 21:20:05 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> dealt with any 'discipline', nor any 'confidential company contacts' >> *shrug* Actually, for the later, I'd say Greatbridge was the only >> time we've dealt with *that* ... > > Depends on exactly what he means by discipline. Core finally stepping > up on the naming argument could fall into that. I would have classified that as assuming our role as 'steering committee' myself ... - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHVOXs4QvfyHIvDvMRAqlbAKCvyap67fkSZRehzHUcxfGxul2hHwCaA1LD KYGS6v3Y5bCJJuUaag+XhJ4= =ZdBg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Monday, December 03, 2007 21:24:57 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:09:41 -0500 > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >> > * Removes core (per Bruce M) >> >> Say what? > > heh... It removes the "Core" categorization from the contributors and > just places them directly into the Active Contributors. Per my response > to Marc Core would thus be designated from the description. > > /note I am not arguing this change just stating what I did. > I made the > change because Bruce brought it up and it makes the page a lot simpler. Please remove that part of the patch ... Bruce's opinion does not reflect the rest of Core's, it was just his opinion ... ... even with Bruce's opinion about how little Core does (another thing that does'nt reflect the rest of Core's opinion), those "confidential company contacts" need to know we exist, and having to search for the string 'core' in all of the active contributors seems to be a negative approach to this ... - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHVOdV4QvfyHIvDvMRAuJcAJ9+eqUzDjNQzgRTVeIQc/Ys1iuDWwCgnuVT 5oz/wwblZm3HB2yhZDSz2JU= =LsTZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:36:21 -0400
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> > /note I am not arguing this change just stating what I did.
> > I made the
> > change because Bruce brought it up and it makes the page a lot
> > simpler.
>
> Please remove that part of the patch ... Bruce's opinion does not
> reflect the rest of Core's, it was just his opinion ...
The patch won't make that change.. the DML will.
>
> ... even with Bruce's opinion about how little Core does (another
> thing that does'nt reflect the rest of Core's opinion), those
> "confidential company contacts" need to know we exist, and having to
> search for the string 'core' in all of the active contributors seems
> to be a negative approach to this ...
*shrug* it is as simple as changing an entries "type"...
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVOyeATb/zqfZUUQRAt2xAJ0VD5yH2B1U9pxz8PW87R0EysGHVwCfYGd8
r4iznytimHQ+FVRFlfeRAx8=
=pyNg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:42:48 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will
> welcome feedback. The specifics are below:
>
> * Removes developers/bios
> * Creates community/contributors
> * Removes core (per Bruce M)
> * Adds Active Contributors
> * Adds Occasional Contributors
>
> The following DML needs to be run as well:
>
> update developers_types set sortorder = 1 where type = 3;
> update developers set type = '3' where type = '1';
> update developers_types set extrainfo = 'The following individuals
> are active contributors to the project. You will generally find them
> active on the lists, working on features or supporting the
> PostgreSQL.org infrastructure.' where type = '3';
>
I missed a dml:
update developers_types set typename = 'Active contributors' where type = '3';
update developers_types set typename = 'Occasional contributors' where type = '4';
If we don't put in the core inclusion part then we just don't do this:
update developers set type = '3' where type = '1';
And we will have to do this instead:
update developers_types set sortorder = 2 where type = 3;
Anyway, I would be curious to know what other core members think...
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVO0yATb/zqfZUUQRAiJzAJ0TS8zWSWwSeA6Sly1fWu2SVEbhTwCeNXMr
a6iscRr/zq3C1FuocUNyy0Y=
=NqYr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:01:22 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > FYI you can see what this looks like here: http://69.34.217.90/community/contributors Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHVO8sATb/zqfZUUQRAoAOAJsEB4vjkkhSrC8x0Kc9lv5KE4z9DQCgkA2s mPlxnGAqb6VDJmAPgSAbyYI= =QUPo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will > welcome feedback. The specifics are below: > > * Removes developers/bios > * Creates community/contributors > * Removes core (per Bruce M) You what? /D
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Anyway, I would be curious to know what other core members think... I agree with Marc. The Core section should not be removed. I find it slightly amusing that you've done that, yet left a dedicated section for Hackers Emeritus. /D
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 08:42:48PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello, > > O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will > welcome feedback. The specifics are below: > > * Removes developers/bios > * Creates community/contributors > * Removes core (per Bruce M) > * Adds Active Contributors > * Adds Occasional Contributors Couple of comments, apart from the obvious "let's not drop -core": * I suggest we leave it at the old URL as well, and not remove it. For ppl coming in from old links. It can still be community section, and it can still have a different title, though * Let's not delete the old developer.php file and create a new identical one. Modify the one that's there instead. Filenames don't have to match, that's what the dispatcher takes care of. * You added a new template, but didn't remove the old one. My suggestion - keep the old one, don't add the new one. //Magnus
Hi, On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:47 +0000, Dave Page wrote: > > Anyway, I would be curious to know what other core members think... > > I agree with Marc. The Core section should not be removed. +1 from me... -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ , RHCE PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Josh, >ends on exactly what he means by discipline. Core finally stepping > up on the naming argument could fall into that. Yeah, except that apparently everyone decided that I was wrong to do that. --Josh
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello, > > O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will > welcome feedback. The specifics are below: > > * Removes developers/bios > * Creates community/contributors > * Removes core (per Bruce M) > * Adds Active Contributors > * Adds Occasional Contributors I'm not clear on why we're overhauling the contributors page. What's wrong with the old format? I'm not necessarily objecting to your changes, but you should probably explain the reasoning behind them. --Josh
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:44:16PM +0530, Josh Berkus wrote: > >ends on exactly what he means by discipline. Core finally stepping > >up on the naming argument could fall into that. > > Yeah, except that apparently everyone decided that I was wrong to do that. Really? I haven't heard anybody complaining that -core finally spoke up on that. For the record, *I* think it was very good that you did. (assuming we're talking about the same thing - postgres vs postgresql, right?) //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:44:16PM +0530, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> ends on exactly what he means by discipline. Core finally stepping >>> up on the naming argument could fall into that. >> Yeah, except that apparently everyone decided that I was wrong to do that. > > Really? I haven't heard anybody complaining that -core finally spoke up on > that. For the record, *I* think it was very good that you did. exactly that's my thought too ... Stefan
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 08:42:48PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hello, >> >> O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will >> welcome feedback. The specifics are below: >> >> * Removes developers/bios >> * Creates community/contributors >> * Removes core (per Bruce M) >> * Adds Active Contributors >> * Adds Occasional Contributors > > Couple of comments, apart from the obvious "let's not drop -core": > > * I suggest we leave it at the old URL as well, and not remove it. For ppl > coming in from old links. It can still be community section, and it can > still have a different title, though This should be a redirect, which I can put in place with PHP. We should not duplicate content like that. > > * Let's not delete the old developer.php file and create a new identical > one. Modify the one that's there instead. Filenames don't have to match, > that's what the dispatcher takes care of. That would be inconsistent with the rest of the portal layout. > > * You added a new template, but didn't remove the old one. My suggestion - > keep the old one, don't add the new one. I should remove the old one. I must of missed it, sorry. Joshua D. Drake > > > //Magnus > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >
Dave Page wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Anyway, I would be curious to know what other core members think... > > I agree with Marc. The Core section should not be removed. > > I find it slightly amusing that you've done that, yet left a dedicated > section for Hackers Emeritus. That is what was discussed :). Again, keep in mind the patch doesn't do any of this. It is all controlled by the DML in the developers_* tables. Joshua D. Drake > > /D >
Josh Berkus wrote: > Josh, > > >ends on exactly what he means by discipline. Core finally stepping >> up on the naming argument could fall into that. > > Yeah, except that apparently everyone decided that I was wrong to do that. You didn't, Dave Page did if I recall. I am not talking about your Advocacy coup ;) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > --Josh >
Hello, In summary for this patch. The patch does not change the display of the contributors except to move it to /community (where it belongs imo). What controls the display of the contributors is the database. If we want to keep core at top, just don't change type 1 to type 3 where type = 1. Core will remain in place at the top. (I already posted about this but I think people glossed over it since it was late). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > In summary for this patch. The patch does not change the display of the > contributors except to move it to /community (where it belongs imo). > What controls the display of the contributors is the database. > > If we want to keep core at top, just don't change type 1 to type 3 where > type = 1. Core will remain in place at the top. (I already posted about > this but I think people glossed over it since it was late). It's not that we glossed over anything, but that the entire proposal was being considered rather than just the specifics of what the patch did vs. the DML. /D
> >> Hello, > >> > >> O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will > >> welcome feedback. The specifics are below: > >> > >> * Removes developers/bios > >> * Creates community/contributors > >> * Removes core (per Bruce M) > >> * Adds Active Contributors > >> * Adds Occasional Contributors > > > > Couple of comments, apart from the obvious "let's not drop -core": > > > > * I suggest we leave it at the old URL as well, and not remove it. For ppl > > coming in from old links. It can still be community section, and it can > > still have a different title, though > > This should be a redirect, which I can put in place with PHP. We should > not duplicate content like that. It's not really duplicate. Just add two rows in the dispatcher. > > * Let's not delete the old developer.php file and create a new identical > > one. Modify the one that's there instead. Filenames don't have to match, > > that's what the dispatcher takes care of. > > That would be inconsistent with the rest of the portal layout. that'sjust temporary. The system is set up so you can do this stuff without kiling version control, by using the dispatcher.Please do so. > > * You added a new template, but didn't remove the old one. My suggestion - > > keep the old one, don't add the new one. > > I should remove the old one. I must of missed it, sorry. > No, you should *use* the old one... /Magnus
Dave Page wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Hello, >> >> In summary for this patch. The patch does not change the display of the >> contributors except to move it to /community (where it belongs imo). >> What controls the display of the contributors is the database. >> >> If we want to keep core at top, just don't change type 1 to type 3 where >> type = 1. Core will remain in place at the top. (I already posted about >> this but I think people glossed over it since it was late). > > It's not that we glossed over anything, but that the entire proposal was > being considered rather than just the specifics of what the patch did > vs. the DML. Except the "patch" doesn't remove core ;)... Anyway, I am not trying to argue semantics. My point is if the patch is applied as is without modification to the DML, the page is going to look just like the existing developers page, just under community. Depending on "what" DML is applied will effect the display of that page dramatically. It seems at lease core consensus :P is to not remove their position at the top of the page, which I don't really care about so.... don't apply that update. I would still like to apply: update developers_types set typename = 'Active contributors' where type = '3'; update developers_types set typename = 'Occasional contributors' where type = '4'; Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > /D >
Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> * I suggest we leave it at the old URL as well, and not remove it. For ppl >>> coming in from old links. It can still be community section, and it can >>> still have a different title, though >> This should be a redirect, which I can put in place with PHP. We should >> not duplicate content like that. > > It's not really duplicate. Just add two rows in the dispatcher. If it presents the same content under /developers as under /community it is duplicate and that is dumb. I would agree that having a redirect is appropriate. > >>> * Let's not delete the old developer.php file and create a new identical >>> one. Modify the one that's there instead. Filenames don't have to match, >>> that's what the dispatcher takes care of. >> That would be inconsistent with the rest of the portal layout. > > that'sjust temporary. The system is set up so you can do this stuff without kiling version control, by using the dispatcher.Please do so. Exactly how are we killing version control? Subversion handles removal of files just fine. > >>> * You added a new template, but didn't remove the old one. My suggestion - >>> keep the old one, don't add the new one. >> I should remove the old one. I must of missed it, sorry. >> > No, you should *use* the old one... > Disagreements are the heart of open source. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
O.k. part deux:
BEGIN;
UPDATE developers_types SET typename = 'Active Contributors'
WHERE type = '3';
UPDATE developers_types SET typename = 'Occasional Contributors'
WHERE type = '4';
UPDATE developers_types SET extrainfo = 'The following individuals are
active contributors to the project. You will generally find them active
on the lists, working on features or supporting the PostgreSQL.org
infrastructure.' WHERE type = '3';
COMMIT;
Added Developer Profiles link back to developers. It is just a
placeholder as it just points to community/contributors but will allow
links to not be broken.
Added core back.
Changed the above using SQL.
Attached.
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVbaAATb/zqfZUUQRAu4wAJ9IrGCWyq6tDvVcJuxQYyODSbgBcgCfStS7
iYgCqt48onLQvpV5tnk+BYI=
=k8O/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment
> >>> * I suggest we leave it at the old URL as well, and not remove it. For ppl > >>> coming in from old links. It can still be community section, and it can > >>> still have a different title, though > >> This should be a redirect, which I can put in place with PHP. We should > >> not duplicate content like that. > > > > It's not really duplicate. Just add two rows in the dispatcher. > > If it presents the same content under /developers as under /community it > is duplicate and that is dumb. I would agree that having a redirect is > appropriate. Matter of definition. Data exists once and is presented twice. Kinda like normalisation :-P > >>> * Let's not delete the old developer.php file and create a new identical > >>> one. Modify the one that's there instead. Filenames don't have to match, > >>> that's what the dispatcher takes care of. > >> That would be inconsistent with the rest of the portal layout. > > > > that'sjust temporary. The system is set up so you can do this stuff without kiling version control, by using the dispatcher.Please do so. > > Exactly how are we killing version control? Subversion handles removal > of files just fine. Bad choice of words. But if your patch is applied, I can't see a diff of your changes. And it's still logged as one ad andone remove. so I can't easily diff between tomorrows version and one two steps back. And since there really is no gain, imnsho, I see no reason to take away that ability. > >>> * You added a new template, but didn't remove the old one. My suggestion - > >>> keep the old one, don't add the new one. > >> I should remove the old one. I must of missed it, sorry. > >> > > No, you should *use* the old one... > > > > Disagreements are the heart of open source. Indeed :) /Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 00:04:52 +0100
"Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> Bad choice of words. But if your patch is applied, I can't see a diff
> of your changes. And it's still logged as one ad and one remove. so I
> can't easily diff between tomorrows version and one two steps back.
> And since there really is no gain, imnsho, I see no reason to take
> away that ability.
>
O.k. I just checked and if I use svn mv instead of svn rm and svn add,
then the changelog will follow. That should remove your concern yes?
jd@scratch:~/test/test$ svn add test
A test
jd@scratch:~/test/test$ svn commit -m "this is a test"
Adding test
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 1.
jd@scratch:~/test/test$ svn mv test test2
A test2
D test
jd@scratch:~/test/test$ svn commit -m "moving test2"
Deleting test
Adding test2
Committed revision 2.
jd@scratch:~/test/test$ svn log
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
jd@scratch:~/test/test$ svn log test2
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r2 | jd | 2007-12-04 15:42:52 -0800 (Tue, 04 Dec 2007) | 1 line
moving test2
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r1 | jd | 2007-12-04 15:42:40 -0800 (Tue, 04 Dec 2007) | 1 line
this is a test
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
jd@scratch:~/test/test$ svn log test
svn: 'test' is not under version control
jd@scratch:~/test/test$
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVeZuATb/zqfZUUQRAhgrAJ4jiGd9VMUa1WML0Z8YgdTMNSWL3ACdFZWZ
PJttm+n48pLjkfncjGAiJ08=
=5zcv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 00:04:52 +0100 > "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > > > Bad choice of words. But if your patch is applied, I can't see a diff > > of your changes. And it's still logged as one ad and one remove. so I > > can't easily diff between tomorrows version and one two steps back. > > And since there really is no gain, imnsho, I see no reason to take > > away that ability. > > O.k. I just checked and if I use svn mv instead of svn rm and svn add, > then the changelog will follow. That should remove your concern yes? Magnus' concern is svn diff, which does not really work. (I've been annoyed by this). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.PlanetPostgreSQL.org/ "Postgres is bloatware by design: it was built to housePhD theses." (Joey Hellerstein, SIGMOD annual conference 2002)
On Monday 03 December 2007 23:42, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will
> welcome feedback. The specifics are below:
> * Adds Active Contributors
> * Adds Occasional Contributors
>
I'm not sure what reasoning spawned this change, but I would object to it
myself, mostly on grounds that the people in those lists have been
categorized on significance of their contribution (Major), not frequency of
it (Active).
On a side note, whilst everyone has been discussing reshaping the lists in
thier own vision, I think what has been fairly overlooked is the task of
shuffling some of our Majors and Others between those two categories (at
least I always thought that was an important part when I was maintaining the
information, I'm not sure what the current ideas behind the thing are)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:44:30 -0500
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Monday 03 December 2007 23:42, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will
> > welcome feedback. The specifics are below:
> > * Adds Active Contributors
> > * Adds Occasional Contributors
> >
>
> I'm not sure what reasoning spawned this change, but I would object
> to it myself, mostly on grounds that the people in those lists have
> been categorized on significance of their contribution (Major), not
> frequency of it (Active).
Major is quantitatively more subjective than Active.
>
> On a side note, whilst everyone has been discussing reshaping the
> lists in thier own vision, I think what has been fairly overlooked is
> the task of shuffling some of our Majors and Others between those two
> categories (at least I always thought that was an important part when
> I was maintaining the information, I'm not sure what the current
> ideas behind the thing are)
My understanding and this is implicit as I was never told so I am
making a complete assumption here, is that it was Josh Berkus's
responsibility.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVi+8ATb/zqfZUUQRAs03AKCDzu8UGutH6M7F/GU233IPGzloUgCdFwUt
19fV79CTkEy5CeHMuX//oPE=
=+yK6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> In summary for this patch. The patch does not change the display of the >>> contributors except to move it to /community (where it belongs imo). >>> What controls the display of the contributors is the database. >>> >>> If we want to keep core at top, just don't change type 1 to type 3 where >>> type = 1. Core will remain in place at the top. (I already posted about >>> this but I think people glossed over it since it was late). >> >> It's not that we glossed over anything, but that the entire proposal was >> being considered rather than just the specifics of what the patch did >> vs. the DML. > > Except the "patch" doesn't remove core ;)... Anyway, I am not trying to > argue semantics. My point is if the patch is applied as is without > modification to the DML, the page is going to look just like the > existing developers page, just under community. Well, +1 to database this. Can you hack us something together for donors, too? ;-) --Josh
> > Except the "patch" doesn't remove core ;)... Anyway, I am not trying to > > argue semantics. My point is if the patch is applied as is without > > modification to the DML, the page is going to look just like the > > existing developers page, just under community. > > Well, +1 to database this. Uh, I databased this a long time ago... > Can you hack us something together for donors, too? ;-) I'm sure someone can if you tell us what you need :) /Magnus
> > > Bad choice of words. But if your patch is applied, I can't see a diff > > > of your changes. And it's still logged as one ad and one remove. so I > > > can't easily diff between tomorrows version and one two steps back. > > > And since there really is no gain, imnsho, I see no reason to take > > > away that ability. > > > > O.k. I just checked and if I use svn mv instead of svn rm and svn add, > > then the changelog will follow. That should remove your concern yes? > > Magnus' concern is svn diff, which does not really work. (I've been > annoyed by this). correct. And I repeat that I see no actual gain countering this annoyance... If there was enough on the plus side, I'd behappy to live with it... /Magnus
Josh Berkus wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Dave Page wrote: >>> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>> Hello, >> Except the "patch" doesn't remove core ;)... Anyway, I am not trying >> to argue semantics. My point is if the patch is applied as is without >> modification to the DML, the page is going to look just like the >> existing developers page, just under community. > > Well, +1 to database this. Uhmmm it is databased. > > Can you hack us something together for donors, too? ;-) > It's on the list. I understand how the code works now. Joshua D. Drake
Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> Bad choice of words. But if your patch is applied, I can't see a diff >>>> of your changes. And it's still logged as one ad and one remove. so I >>>> can't easily diff between tomorrows version and one two steps back. >>>> And since there really is no gain, imnsho, I see no reason to take >>>> away that ability. >>> O.k. I just checked and if I use svn mv instead of svn rm and svn add, >>> then the changelog will follow. That should remove your concern yes? >> Magnus' concern is svn diff, which does not really work. (I've been >> annoyed by this). > > correct. And I repeat that I see no actual gain countering this annoyance... If there was enough on the plus side, I'dbe happy to live with it... Consistency is more important than general annoyance but I am trying to find a happy medium here. What if I leave the old file in place but empty with a comment of why? Thus the svn diff etc... stays intact. Considering we are now talking about contributors not developer bios that should be sufficient. I will admit that I didn't change the underlying tables. I wanted to but didn't because I am unaware of what else may call to them. Joshua D. Drake
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:23:58PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>>>Bad choice of words. But if your patch is applied, I can't see a diff > >>>>of your changes. And it's still logged as one ad and one remove. so I > >>>>can't easily diff between tomorrows version and one two steps back. > >>>>And since there really is no gain, imnsho, I see no reason to take > >>>>away that ability. > >>>O.k. I just checked and if I use svn mv instead of svn rm and svn add, > >>>then the changelog will follow. That should remove your concern yes? > >>Magnus' concern is svn diff, which does not really work. (I've been > >>annoyed by this). > > > >correct. And I repeat that I see no actual gain countering this > >annoyance... If there was enough on the plus side, I'd be happy to live > >with it... > > Consistency is more important than general annoyance but I am trying to The system is *specifically designed* not to lock filenames to URLs. I don't understand why you have such a hard time to accept that ;-) For example, hosting pages are served by professional.php. Techdocs are served by communitydocs.php. That is *intended*. The only place where filenames are supposed to be "consistent" with URLs is in the static area of /templates/. > find a happy medium here. What if I leave the old file in place but > empty with a comment of why? Thus the svn diff etc... stays intact. Eh, that's just plain stupid, really. If that's the option, then I'd rather see the file removed. > Considering we are now talking about contributors not developer bios > that should be sufficient. > > I will admit that I didn't change the underlying tables. I wanted to but > didn't because I am unaware of what else may call to them. What did you want to change and how? I don't *think* anybody elses uses them, except you'd have to update the admin interface as well of course. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:23:58PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> correct. And I repeat that I see no actual gain countering this >>> annoyance... If there was enough on the plus side, I'd be happy to live >>> with it... >> Consistency is more important than general annoyance but I am trying to > > The system is *specifically designed* not to lock filenames to URLs. I > don't understand why you have such a hard time to accept that ;-) It isn't that I don't accept it. The design is fine. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to start naming files in a way that is counter to their purpose. Consider... I have a table called people but fill it full of companies. That is wrong. Consistency is extremely important to the maintenance of any project and any code base. Your suggest opens the doors for a horrible pile of spaghetti over the years. Consider... we have developers in contributors, sponsors in donors, resources in links on and on and on. It is a mistake, flat out. > > For example, hosting pages are served by professional.php. Techdocs are > served by communitydocs.php. That is *intended*. > If it is intended it is a mistake. Techdocs should be served by techdocs and now my point above is made. > The only place where filenames are supposed to be "consistent" with URLs is > in the static area of /templates/. We should be consistent throughout. It makes management much easier. > >> find a happy medium here. What if I leave the old file in place but >> empty with a comment of why? Thus the svn diff etc... stays intact. > > Eh, that's just plain stupid, really. If that's the option, then I'd rather > see the file removed. Good then we are agreed, let's remove the file :) > > >> Considering we are now talking about contributors not developer bios >> that should be sufficient. >> >> I will admit that I didn't change the underlying tables. I wanted to but >> didn't because I am unaware of what else may call to them. > > What did you want to change and how? I don't *think* anybody elses uses > them, except you'd have to update the admin interface as well of course. Just the table names so they were consistent with the pages. Is the admin interface in portal? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:23:58PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>>> correct. And I repeat that I see no actual gain countering this >>>> annoyance... If there was enough on the plus side, I'd be happy to >>>> live with it... >>> Consistency is more important than general annoyance but I am trying to >> >> The system is *specifically designed* not to lock filenames to URLs. I >> don't understand why you have such a hard time to accept that ;-) > > It isn't that I don't accept it. The design is fine. That doesn't mean > it is a good idea to start naming files in a way that is counter to > their purpose. > > Consider... I have a table called people but fill it full of companies. > That is wrong. Consistency is extremely important to the maintenance of > any project and any code base. I disagree here - I think renaming is simply a useless act and I'm firm with magnus here that playing this game will hardly gain us much but having to deal with annoyances here and there :-( > > Your suggest opens the doors for a horrible pile of spaghetti over the > years. Consider... we have developers in contributors, sponsors in > donors, resources in links on and on and on. > > It is a mistake, flat out. > >> >> For example, hosting pages are served by professional.php. Techdocs are >> served by communitydocs.php. That is *intended*. >> > > If it is intended it is a mistake. Techdocs should be served by techdocs > and now my point above is made. why ? I don't see the point in renaming files for no real purpose (other than "it looks nicer to the five odd people browsing the source" and having to deal with annoyances as a result) Stefan
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 07:59:38AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:23:58PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>Magnus Hagander wrote: > > >>>correct. And I repeat that I see no actual gain countering this > >>>annoyance... If there was enough on the plus side, I'd be happy to live > >>>with it... > >>Consistency is more important than general annoyance but I am trying to > > > >The system is *specifically designed* not to lock filenames to URLs. I > >don't understand why you have such a hard time to accept that ;-) > > It isn't that I don't accept it. The design is fine. That doesn't mean > it is a good idea to start naming files in a way that is counter to > their purpose. > > Consider... I have a table called people but fill it full of companies. > That is wrong. Consistency is extremely important to the maintenance of > any project and any code base. > > Your suggest opens the doors for a horrible pile of spaghetti over the > years. Consider... we have developers in contributors, sponsors in > donors, resources in links on and on and on. > > It is a mistake, flat out. On this, we obviously disagree. > >For example, hosting pages are served by professional.php. Techdocs are > >served by communitydocs.php. That is *intended*. > > > > If it is intended it is a mistake. Techdocs should be served by techdocs > and now my point above is made. No. Because community docs is designed to be able to handle much more than what's currently named techdocs. > >>find a happy medium here. What if I leave the old file in place but > >>empty with a comment of why? Thus the svn diff etc... stays intact. > > > >Eh, that's just plain stupid, really. If that's the option, then I'd rather > >see the file removed. > > Good then we are agreed, let's remove the file :) No :-) Let's not. > >>Considering we are now talking about contributors not developer bios > >>that should be sufficient. > >> > >>I will admit that I didn't change the underlying tables. I wanted to but > >>didn't because I am unaware of what else may call to them. > > > >What did you want to change and how? I don't *think* anybody elses uses > >them, except you'd have to update the admin interface as well of course. > > Just the table names so they were consistent with the pages. Is the > admin interface in portal? Yes. See the dispatcher and associated PHP classes ;-) //Magnus
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Consider... I have a table called people but fill it full of companies. >> That is wrong. Consistency is extremely important to the maintenance of >> any project and any code base. > > I disagree here - I think renaming is simply a useless act and I'm firm > with magnus here that playing this game will hardly gain us much but > having to deal with annoyances here and there :-( It isn't just a rename, it is a move to the appropriate organized structure that is represented correctly except where people were too lazy to do it correctly before. Remember the content has moved from developers to community. Both your and magnus's arguments boil down to two things: 1. We want the diff correct. This has some legitimacy and I can see where this would be annoying. I proposed a couple of solution. None are acceptable to Magnus so I don't know what to do. Frankly I don't think we are missing a lot, especially if we use svn mv. We can always manually diff if we absolutely have to. 2. We designed it so we don't have to be consistent. This with respect is easily the dumbest thing being argued in this thread. Considering we are only arguing two things, and not actually arguing the merit of the patch itself that says a lot. If I were to submit something inconsistent into -hackers I would be beaten until I was bloody and begging for someone to teach me the ways of correctness. > >> Your suggest opens the doors for a horrible pile of spaghetti over the >> years. Consider... we have developers in contributors, sponsors in >> donors, resources in links on and on and on. >> >> It is a mistake, flat out. >> >>> For example, hosting pages are served by professional.php. Techdocs are >>> served by communitydocs.php. That is *intended*. >>> >> If it is intended it is a mistake. Techdocs should be served by techdocs >> and now my point above is made. > > why ? Please read the thread. I have made it very clear. This is a management nightmare in the making and frankly the fact that I know the above now, I am going to submit a patch to fix that laziness too. > I don't see the point in renaming files for no real purpose (other > than "it looks nicer to the five odd people browsing the source" and > having to deal with annoyances as a result) > I propose we rename all files based on the timestamp plus milliseconds of their first commit. The dispatcher is there, it can take care of everything. Barring that, because we want svn diff capability... we leave all old files as they are but all new files must be named by the EPOCH. Joshua D. Drake > > Stefan > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match >
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 07:59:38AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> For example, hosting pages are served by professional.php. Techdocs are >>> served by communitydocs.php. That is *intended*. >>> >> If it is intended it is a mistake. Techdocs should be served by techdocs >> and now my point above is made. > > No. Because community docs is designed to be able to handle much more than > what's currently named techdocs. Well then your example doesn't jive at all with what is going on. If community docs is a container that is a different argument. I can see a situation where we have: community_docs -> techdocs articles blogs whitepapers All served by community_docs. That makes sense. However this: community->---- | |->contributors | | developers < | | | |---------------> Does not. >>> What did you want to change and how? I don't *think* anybody elses uses >>> them, except you'd have to update the admin interface as well of course. >> Just the table names so they were consistent with the pages. Is the >> admin interface in portal? > > Yes. See the dispatcher and associated PHP classes ;-) o.k. Joshua D. Drake
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:54:35PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > Your suggest opens the doors for a horrible pile of spaghetti over the > > years. Consider... we have developers in contributors, sponsors in > > donors, resources in links on and on and on. > > > > It is a mistake, flat out. > > On this, we obviously disagree. It seems to me that on this topic, there are two points of view here. To caricature, the first view is that categorization should follow the principle of least astonishment. Josh's patch attempts to reorganize things that way. The second view is that the framework has features to make opacity of categorization not a big deal. From my point of view, it would be very nice if someone could explain why fixing this opacity isn't a good idea. In general, it is surely a good idea to make things less confusing or surprising when one has the opportunity. What is the reason _not_ do to this? A
Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Your suggest opens the doors for a horrible pile of spaghetti over the >>> years. Consider... we have developers in contributors, sponsors in >>> donors, resources in links on and on and on. >>> >>> It is a mistake, flat out. >>> >>>> For example, hosting pages are served by professional.php. Techdocs are >>>> served by communitydocs.php. That is *intended*. >>>> >>> If it is intended it is a mistake. Techdocs should be served by techdocs >>> and now my point above is made. >> >> why ? > > Please read the thread. I have made it very clear. This is a management > nightmare in the making and frankly the fact that I know the above now, > I am going to submit a patch to fix that laziness too. I suggest you find at least one person who actually agrees with you (amongst the people who are maintaining the stuff, or are likely to in the future) before you put too much time into that :-P >> I don't see the point in renaming files for no real purpose (other >> than "it looks nicer to the five odd people browsing the source" and >> having to deal with annoyances as a result) >> > > I propose we rename all files based on the timestamp plus milliseconds > of their first commit. The dispatcher is there, it can take care of > everything. Barring that, because we want svn diff capability... we > leave all old files as they are but all new files must be named by the > EPOCH. Um. That would be exactly the "renaming files for no real purpose" that Stefan said he didn't see the point of ;-) //Magnus
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:44:30 -0500 > Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >> On Monday 03 December 2007 23:42, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> O.k. patch is attached, it looks pretty good on my sandbox but will >>> welcome feedback. The specifics are below: >>> * Adds Active Contributors >>> * Adds Occasional Contributors >>> >> I'm not sure what reasoning spawned this change, but I would object >> to it myself, mostly on grounds that the people in those lists have >> been categorized on significance of their contribution (Major), not >> frequency of it (Active). > > Major is quantitatively more subjective than Active. It is. But with just active/inactive, you give the same level of attention to say Heikki or Pavan as you do to someone who sends in a one-line patch for a README? One thing that's important though - if we do change this, we need to recategorise people at the same time. We can't just rename "major" to "recent" and then move people around at a later time. >> On a side note, whilst everyone has been discussing reshaping the >> lists in thier own vision, I think what has been fairly overlooked is >> the task of shuffling some of our Majors and Others between those two >> categories (at least I always thought that was an important part when >> I was maintaining the information, I'm not sure what the current >> ideas behind the thing are) > > My understanding and this is implicit as I was never told so I am > making a complete assumption here, is that it was Josh Berkus's > responsibility. Nope. As long as I can remember it's been Rob who made the changes, and he then sent them past -core for approval before it was actually put on the site. Berkus was certainly part of the approval process as a member of -core, but AFAIK he didn't actuallyi make the changes. //Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:24:11 +0100
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> > Major is quantitatively more subjective than Active.
>
> It is. But with just active/inactive, you give the same level of
> attention to say Heikki or Pavan as you do to someone who sends in a
> one-line patch for a README?
You are forgetting Occasional :)
>
> One thing that's important though - if we do change this, we need to
> recategorise people at the same time. We can't just rename "major" to
> "recent" and then move people around at a later time.
In general I think that Active/Major is applicable and replaceable on
the current list. There are certainly omissions Stefan for example
which need to be remedied but I think everyone could agree that those
changes could be submitted shortly after the patch is accepted.
My primary concern is the removal of the word developer. I would be
reasonably happy with "Major contributors", "Minor contributor".
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVwsJATb/zqfZUUQRAlC0AKCVpZBs7pQmz7bQkCHtDu6cmQJgnQCgrrss
uXlOThc0OePXUaW8QErq/2c=
=26zF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > My primary concern is the removal of the word developer. I would be > reasonably happy with "Major contributors", "Minor contributor". What problem do you have with developers? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC "I dream about dreams about dreams", sang the nightingale under the pale moon (Sandman)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:40:28 -0300
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > My primary concern is the removal of the word developer. I would be
> > reasonably happy with "Major contributors", "Minor contributor".
>
> What problem do you have with developers?
It doesn't accurately represent all contributors.
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVw2CATb/zqfZUUQRAgy9AJ4o36+DDeZXb03PB0F6nwiRVzLHEQCgm+ES
JCC7VhbJf/QB1JYTDvr2TsA=
=0ncF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> One thing that's important though - if we do change this, we need to >> recategorise people at the same time. We can't just rename "major" to >> "recent" and then move people around at a later time. > > In general I think that Active/Major is applicable and replaceable on > the current list. There are certainly omissions Stefan for example > which need to be remedied but I think everyone could agree that those > changes could be submitted shortly after the patch is accepted. > > My primary concern is the removal of the word developer. I would be > reasonably happy with "Major contributors", "Minor contributor". I'm fine with that. And I agree that we need to recognise non-developer-contributors. Either by renaming it to contributors, or by creating separate sections for developers and "other contributors". But creating separate sections creates the problem of how to deal with people who are both. So I think renaming it is a good solution. //Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:48:02 +0100
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
In an effort to remain productive... please see attached patch.
Also required:
BEGIN;
UPDATE developers_types SET typename = 'Major Contributors'
WHERE type = 3;
UPDATE developers_types SET typename = 'Minor Contributors'
WHERE type = 4;
COMMIT;
There are no new files, only modification to existing ones. I also
added a rewrite rule to .htaccess. The rule works but I am unsure
I will say that Magnus/Stefans (wrong :P) way results in a smaller
patch.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVxXDATb/zqfZUUQRAg6vAJsHWZsYaKV6iRxjD0dK3Isn92G0nACeJeSp
X5ALSlNQqrjPSVLjLorkQUY=
=mbLK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:48:02 +0100 > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > In an effort to remain productive... please see attached patch. > > Also required: > > BEGIN; > UPDATE developers_types SET typename = 'Major Contributors' > WHERE type = 3; > UPDATE developers_types SET typename = 'Minor Contributors' > WHERE type = 4; > COMMIT; > > There are no new files, only modification to existing ones. I also > added a rewrite rule to .htaccess. The rule works but I am unsure > > I will say that Magnus/Stefans (wrong :P) way results in a smaller > patch. > As I think I said on IM, the rewrite rule part is bogus, really. It needs to get out on the static frontends, and just putting it there doesn't do that - it only affects wwwmaster. And for that, it really *is* easier to just accept the old URL still ;-) It needs to go in portal/tools/htaccess/root. I can take a look at doing this if you don't want to, but not right now (you *really* need to test stuff going in there, we've had some serious breakage from bad patches there before) Other than that, I obviously like this patch much better ;) //Magnus
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 12:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:48:02 +0100 > > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > > > In an effort to remain productive... please see attached patch. > > > > Also required: > > > > BEGIN; > > UPDATE developers_types SET typename = 'Major Contributors' > > WHERE type = 3; > > UPDATE developers_types SET typename = 'Minor Contributors' > > WHERE type = 4; > > COMMIT; > > > > There are no new files, only modification to existing ones. I also > > added a rewrite rule to .htaccess. The rule works but I am unsure > > > > I will say that Magnus/Stefans (wrong :P) way results in a smaller > > patch. > > > > As I think I said on IM, the rewrite rule part is bogus, really. It > needs to get out on the static frontends, and just putting it there > doesn't do that - it only affects wwwmaster. And for that, it really > *is* easier to just accept the old URL still ;-) > > It needs to go in portal/tools/htaccess/root. I can take a look at doing > this if you don't want to, but not right now (you *really* need to test > stuff going in there, we've had some serious breakage from bad patches > there before) Pah. I looked at the wrong end of the patch. I see now that you have that part actually in the patch :-) My bad, please ignore. //Magnus
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:48:02 +0100 > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > In an effort to remain productive... please see attached patch. Patch applied. I also noticed you didn't change the actual title of the page, just the headline. I assume that was a mistake, and fixed it. You also missed the in-text link at the main developers page :-P //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:48:02 +0100 >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> >> In an effort to remain productive... please see attached patch. > > Patch applied. Y'know, I'm still not so convinced about the new headings - 'Minor contributors' is the one that irks me. Consider that that section includes: Greg Stark - CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, var-valena and lots more Thomas Hallgren - Pl/Java Francisco Figueiredo - Npgsql Christopher Browne - Significant work and ongoing maintenance of Slony Heikki Linnakangas - 2PC, major review work, concurrent scan, LDC Amongst others, none of which I think it is fair to call 'minor'. Now some of those should clearly move up into the main section (though thats another discussion), but I think we should reconsider that title. How about 'Other contributors'? Thoughts? /D
Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:48:02 +0100 >>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> >>> In an effort to remain productive... please see attached patch. >> >> Patch applied. > > Y'know, I'm still not so convinced about the new headings - 'Minor > contributors' is the one that irks me. > > Consider that that section includes: > > Greg Stark - CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, var-valena and lots more > Thomas Hallgren - Pl/Java > Francisco Figueiredo - Npgsql > Christopher Browne - Significant work and ongoing maintenance of Slony > Heikki Linnakangas - 2PC, major review work, concurrent scan, LDC > > Amongst others, none of which I think it is fair to call 'minor'. Now > some of those should clearly move up into the main section (though thats > another discussion), but I think we should reconsider that title. How > about 'Other contributors'? > > Thoughts? Yeah, I wasn't entirely convinced about that one. It used to be called "other contributors", so I'd be fine with moving that one back. //Magnus
On Sunday 09 December 2007 09:21, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:48:02 +0100
> >>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In an effort to remain productive... please see attached patch.
> >>
> >> Patch applied.
> >
> > Y'know, I'm still not so convinced about the new headings - 'Minor
> > contributors' is the one that irks me.
> >
> > Consider that that section includes:
> >
> > Greg Stark - CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, var-valena and lots more
> > Thomas Hallgren - Pl/Java
> > Francisco Figueiredo - Npgsql
> > Christopher Browne - Significant work and ongoing maintenance of Slony
> > Heikki Linnakangas - 2PC, major review work, concurrent scan, LDC
> >
> > Amongst others, none of which I think it is fair to call 'minor'. Now
> > some of those should clearly move up into the main section (though thats
> > another discussion), but I think we should reconsider that title. How
> > about 'Other contributors'?
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Yeah, I wasn't entirely convinced about that one. It used to be called
> "other contributors", so I'd be fine with moving that one back.
>
+1
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > It needs to go in portal/tools/htaccess/root. I can take a look at doing > this if you don't want to, but not right now (you *really* need to test > stuff going in there, we've had some serious breakage from bad patches > there before) My root file has: RewriteRule ^developer/bios /community/contributors [L,R=301] ??? Joshua D. Drake
Magnus Hagander wrote: >> It needs to go in portal/tools/htaccess/root. I can take a look at doing >> this if you don't want to, but not right now (you *really* need to test >> stuff going in there, we've had some serious breakage from bad patches >> there before) > > Pah. I looked at the wrong end of the patch. I see now that you have > that part actually in the patch :-) My bad, please ignore. :) Joshua D. Drake
Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Hash: SHA1 > > Amongst others, none of which I think it is fair to call 'minor'. Now They were minor developers before :P. Keep in mind that they can be moved and it is "easy" to add another section. > some of those should clearly move up into the main section (though thats > another discussion), but I think we should reconsider that title. How > about 'Other contributors'? I would consider Other less than Minor but I do get your point. I am not sure if there would be better wording than the one you suggest. Wait... how about just Contributor.. Core Major Contributor Hackers Em... Contributor Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> some of those should clearly move up into the main section (though >> thats another discussion), but I think we should reconsider that >> title. How about 'Other contributors'? > > I would consider Other less than Minor but I do get your point. I am not > sure if there would be better wording than the one you suggest. > > Wait... how about just Contributor.. +1 //Magnus
Dave Page a écrit : > Amongst others, none of which I think it is fair to call 'minor'. Now > some of those should clearly move up into the main section (though thats > another discussion) AFAICS, the page was not updated with 8.3 contributions. So they were "minor" contributors before 8.3 dev cycle. It's obvious some of them have become major during the 8.3 dev cycle. > but I think we should reconsider that title. How > about 'Other contributors'? Why not simply 'Contributors'? -- Guillaume
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:01:22 -0800 > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > FYI you can see what this looks like here: > > http://69.34.217.90/community/contributors I am thinking "Hackers Emeritus" should move down near "Past Contributors". Its current location seems odd. -- 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. +
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > /note I am not arguing this change just stating what I did. > > I made the > > change because Bruce brought it up and it makes the page a lot simpler. > > Please remove that part of the patch ... Bruce's opinion does not reflect the > rest of Core's, it was just his opinion ... > > ... even with Bruce's opinion about how little Core does (another thing that > does'nt reflect the rest of Core's opinion), those "confidential company > contacts" need to know we exist, and having to search for the string 'core' in > all of the active contributors seems to be a negative approach to this ... Here is my post asking if the core section was necessary: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-11/msg01234.php It is true my description of core as incomplete, as it didn't list confidential security and tarball creation. However, having core at the top might imply that core does most of the work for this project, which I don't think is true. One idea would be to list the core members at the top in one sentence, and have their details below. But maybe core-at-the-top is the best of our possible options. -- 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: > One idea would be to list the core members at the top in one sentence, > and have their details below. But maybe core-at-the-top is the best of > our possible options. My impression is that core (in general) is a little sensitive about their position on that page. I didn't care enough to make the argument one way or another because I know that core is subject to the community. However, your point is also valid in that the current representation makes it look like core is somehow the key to the kingdom, which is certainly not true. I do not wish to detract from the importance of core either though. Part of me thinks the page should look like this: Core (link to page with core members) * Definition of core, purpose etc.... Major Contributors (link to page with Major Contributors and Contributors) * Definition Contributors * Definition Hackers Emeritus (Link to page with Hackers Emeritus and Past Contributors) * Definition Past Contributors Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Sunday, December 16, 2007 08:09:42 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> One idea would be to list the core members at the top in one sentence, >> and have their details below. But maybe core-at-the-top is the best of >> our possible options. > > My impression is that core (in general) is a little sensitive about their > position on that page. I didn't care enough to make the argument one way or > another because I know that core is subject to the community. > > However, your point is also valid in that the current representation makes it > look like core is somehow the key to the kingdom, which is certainly not true. > > I do not wish to detract from the importance of core either though. Part of > me thinks the page should look like this: > > Core (link to page with core members) > * Definition of core, purpose etc.... > Major Contributors (link to page with Major Contributors and Contributors) > > * Definition > Contributors > > * Definition > Hackers Emeritus (Link to page with Hackers Emeritus and Past Contributors) > > * Definition > Past Contributors I like the 'Link to listing' idea myself ... keeps that main page 'nice and short' ... - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD4DBQFHZXzZ4QvfyHIvDvMRAi20AJdKxZVgsHB7edd+Gc9OELrxYzjwAKCyGV/J y52n7D9rOxuYXjozVjDAHA== =H2sr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> One idea would be to list the core members at the top in one sentence, >> and have their details below. But maybe core-at-the-top is the best of >> our possible options. > > My impression is that core (in general) is a little sensitive about > their position on that page. I didn't care enough to make the argument > one way or another because I know that core is subject to the community. > > However, your point is also valid in that the current representation > makes it look like core is somehow the key to the kingdom, which is > certainly not true. > > I do not wish to detract from the importance of core either though. Part > of me thinks the page should look like this: > > Core (link to page with core members) I don't like the split-into-a-bunch-of-tiny-pages idea. The page isn't large enough to require that yet, IMHO. And there's space for definition as well, as long as it's nice and short (which it should be). > * Definition of core, purpose etc.... +1 on actually defining that so outsiders can know about it. You'll just have to get -core to agree on a wording for it though :-P //Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Sunday, December 16, 2007 20:36:54 +0100 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> Core (link to page with core members) > > I don't like the split-into-a-bunch-of-tiny-pages idea. The page isn't > large enough to require that yet, IMHO. And there's space for definition > as well, as long as it's nice and short (which it should be). > > >> * Definition of core, purpose etc.... > > +1 on actually defining that so outsiders can know about it. You'll just > have to get -core to agree on a wording for it though :-P We've already been discussing that :) Haven't got anything yet, mind you ... - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHZYSO4QvfyHIvDvMRAqJpAKCJSPiekcPdv8cmlgXIqsUuWAGupQCgrZo9 ZhIWe7JZ3STp935mDbtwhAU= =mucb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I do not wish to detract from the importance of core either though. Part >> of me thinks the page should look like this: >> >> Core (link to page with core members) > > I don't like the split-into-a-bunch-of-tiny-pages idea. The page isn't > large enough to require that yet, IMHO. And there's space for definition > as well, as long as it's nice and short (which it should be). One option would be that the second page would be as it is now but have internal refs. That way we have the short front page but solve the second page is too short problem. With that could even come in page navigation on top of each list that allows navigation between the various topics. > > >> * Definition of core, purpose etc.... > > +1 on actually defining that so outsiders can know about it. You'll just > have to get -core to agree on a wording for it though :-P > :) Joshua D. Drake
Marc G. Fournier wrote: >>> * Definition of core, purpose etc.... >> +1 on actually defining that so outsiders can know about it. You'll just >> have to get -core to agree on a wording for it though :-P > > We've already been discussing that :) Haven't got anything yet, mind you ... I assume since about 1996? :P Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
> ------- Original Message ------- > From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> > To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> > Sent: 16/12/07, 20:24:02 > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Fair large change to contributors > > > We've already been discussing that :) Haven't got anything yet, mind you ... > > I assume since about 1996? :P > Since about 10AM GMT this morning as it happens! /D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:35:02 -0000 "Dave Page" <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote: > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> > > To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> > > Sent: 16/12/07, 20:24:02 > > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Fair large change to contributors > > > > > We've already been discussing that :) Haven't got anything yet, > > > mind you ... > > > > I assume since about 1996? :P > > > > Since about 10AM GMT this morning as it happens! Yeah but my response was funnier ;) Joshua D. Drake > > /D > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our > extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHZY8eATb/zqfZUUQRAiEaAJ4gwh2EhLMo5lBMfEmmH7Gt0BGEpwCfRpiR OrJOesxm3cukHsRMjq5Cuz4= =vi7W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----