Thread: Updated SummerofCode.html
Folks, Please apply. Thanks. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:32:17 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Folks, > > Please apply. Thanks. > ughhh.... - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4cy6ATb/zqfZUUQRAq8wAJ9VstJoHxjfr/bc2MP/Y7ttpR/UTgCgmcDo FnuxspHbAfZ7/RheT6ulUjc= =PSwq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:32:17 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Folks, > > Please apply. Thanks. > Applied... but what is up with the @t stuff? Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4c6bATb/zqfZUUQRAtGaAJ91inCGPcsaadCrSEMtI7zv1qv/DgCfRHBv dgPQ/NofGKH77d9BnL9dg0I= =c/n7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:32 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Please apply I'm confused. This is the version that reverts the changes that I made today, per the page you sent me. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ , RHCE PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:01:53 -0700 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:32 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Please apply > > I'm confused. This is the version that reverts the changes that I made > today, per the page you sent me. Wonderful. I wonder if the request got greylisted or something and I applied an older version. Joshua D. Drake > > Regards, - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4dm9ATb/zqfZUUQRAr90AJ4n/CCGYVubb5zBX4N9AZ6HnQY8ugCfURte DWIOsmkJoep1Z0DrFP7kUpQ= =1TPC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:01:53 -0700 > Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:32 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Please apply > > > > I'm confused. This is the version that reverts the changes that I made > > today, per the page you sent me. > > Wonderful. > > I wonder if the request got greylisted or something and I applied an > older version. Next time we only apply patches. There's no sensible way to compare old and new versions before committing otherwise. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
Hi, On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 08:45 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I would also ask that for people who are not committers, > they must submit the patch to -www not to any one person directly. Josh sent me the patch directly, since it did not arrive -www on time for some reason. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ , RHCE PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:47:29 +0000 "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > > I wonder if the request got greylisted or something and I applied > > an older version. > > > Next time we only apply patches. There's no sensible way to compare > old and new versions before committing otherwise. +1 for that. I would also ask that for people who are not committers, they must submit the patch to -www not to any one person directly. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4oamATb/zqfZUUQRAluJAJ0UCSPPoKA17mDYeAinPKsrQ5KIMQCfcaOy v2A7EpDkcipRP++Sb8MvMLM= =D50m -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:56:00 -0700 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@CommandPrompt.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 08:45 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I would also ask that for people who are not committers, > > they must submit the patch to -www not to any one person directly. > > Josh sent me the patch directly, since it did not arrive -www on time > for some reason. Right :) that is what I am trying to avoid. The greylist queue probably flushed or something. The summerofcode.html is certainly not an emergency patch. We should have waited (not blaming you) just saying. So if we enforce the, it must go to -www, the problem goes away. Yes, we may have to wait a while to get a patch applied but so what? Being patient isn't a bad thing. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4opPATb/zqfZUUQRAkrzAJ9Ym6J31Zv70T+TdSXyUwNby2UwwACeI1V4 cWS7A55vwbLRo3vHseSJPaA= =Vbkn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
All, > Josh sent me the patch directly, since it did not arrive -www on time > for some reason. Correct ... the original update e-mail was held for ~~12 hours instead of being distributed to -www. I had no particular belief it was ever going to be delivered. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Devrim, > I'm confused. This is the version that reverts the changes that I made > today, per the page you sent me. Right. Check the headers; for some reason, that e-mail got held for 12 hours at PostgreSQL.org. Ignore it, please! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Devrim, > >> I'm confused. This is the version that reverts the changes that I made >> today, per the page you sent me. > > Right. Check the headers; for some reason, that e-mail got held for 12 hours > at PostgreSQL.org. Ignore it, please! That's the "classic". It was either held for moderator approval, or it was held in the maia blackhole. //Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:39:34 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Josh, > > > So if we enforce the, it must go to -www, the problem goes away. > > Yes, we may have to wait a while to get a patch applied but so > > what? Being patient isn't a bad thing. > > So what's the timeout for e-mails which never go through at all? 12 > hours? 24? 36? Timeout for which before resend? Or before we start yelling about emails not getting through? Joshua D. Drake > > --Josh > - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4rcZATb/zqfZUUQRAjqaAJ0UniX0vAlSrZ/NJ3BGRORnnvwp4gCggOId Cm3CW/CUfGHnhfxN5EcCDhM= =Mkbi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Josh, > So if we enforce the, it must go to -www, the problem goes away. Yes, > we may have to wait a while to get a patch applied but so what? Being > patient isn't a bad thing. So what's the timeout for e-mails which never go through at all? 12 hours? 24? 36? --Josh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:13:33 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Josh, > > > Timeout for which before resend? Or before we start yelling about > > emails not getting through? > > Timeout before we give up on -www and send stuff directly to web > committers. I'm willing to wait some hours, but delaying an update > for 3 days while I harass Marc about checking the mail queues isn't > reasonable. I think what is even more reasonable that that, is ensuring that a whitelist is created for certain people. You, I, Dave Page etc.. should never have to go through any filtering mechanisms. > > Or maybe we can use a more reliable transport than -www. Doesn't > Trac have an issue tracker? Someplace we can upload stuff? > Yes in fact it does. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4r2jATb/zqfZUUQRAsBgAJ9G97+CflEe3CrwomUAYBXVw39u+wCfYvUW VgIW8wGvvLkorTvL9eeXiDk= =KR5D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Josh, > Timeout for which before resend? Or before we start yelling about > emails not getting through? Timeout before we give up on -www and send stuff directly to web committers. I'm willing to wait some hours, but delaying an update for 3 days while I harass Marc about checking the mail queues isn't reasonable. Or maybe we can use a more reliable transport than -www. Doesn't Trac have an issue tracker? Someplace we can upload stuff? --Josh Berkus
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:13:33 -0700 > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> Josh, > >>> Timeout for which before resend? Or before we start yelling about >>> emails not getting through? >> Timeout before we give up on -www and send stuff directly to web >> committers. I'm willing to wait some hours, but delaying an update >> for 3 days while I harass Marc about checking the mail queues isn't >> reasonable. > > I think what is even more reasonable that that, is ensuring that a > whitelist is created for certain people. You, I, Dave Page etc.. should > never have to go through any filtering mechanisms. The problem in the past week (or whatever it is) isn't due to graylisting. It's due to the mailserver not accepting email. >> Or maybe we can use a more reliable transport than -www. Doesn't >> Trac have an issue tracker? Someplace we can upload stuff? > > > Yes in fact it does. But the emails notifying people of new tickets is still on the same listserver, no? //Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:35:07 +0100 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > Yes in fact it does. > > But the emails notifying people of new tickets is still on the same > listserver, no? I have to check but... I think all of this is moot now that I think about it. First to be fair to Marc, I can remember the last time anything took 3 days to fix. Secondly, if it is taking 3 days the whole world is screaming and we have more important and potentially dangerous things going on that are not a web site update. IMO this is very simple: * Unless you are a committer you must submit via -www, all committers must honor this. (don't accept a patch privately) So we don't have these communication issues in the future. * If there is a problem where email is not coming through, start talking to people. The primary sysadmins are on jabber.postgresql.org, several can be found on #postgresql at any given time in the day, we have phone numbers on pmt.postgresql.org, there is sysadmins@postgresql.org and if it comes down to it, just start emailing directly that there appears to be a clog up somewhere. This idea that somehow we would just wait 36 hours for someone to notice is kind of silly. There are those of us who live on these lists. We notice the moment something bogs down. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4tuuATb/zqfZUUQRAsxcAJ9qDKuZFnZEqyqOEQ3/jQJHqopWswCgmm0R JHMF+cgNDzNC3rhGO+NnEaI= =4GT5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:48:28 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I have to check but... I think all of this is moot now that I think > about it. First to be fair to Marc, I can remember the last time can't Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4tyhATb/zqfZUUQRAlWnAJ9WQfqEuIXbiPyPkh3IDIbSO1CeVACeL2O9 lj6jz7yzJuJ6TIPsMBq6eWc= =nu6P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Josh, > > Or maybe we can use a more reliable transport than -www. Doesn't > > Trac have an issue tracker? Someplace we can upload stuff? > > Yes in fact it does. Can we set the issue tracker to ping this list? Or Slaves? I'd think that would do it ... -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:34:44 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Josh, > > > > Or maybe we can use a more reliable transport than -www. Doesn't > > > Trac have an issue tracker? Someplace we can upload stuff? > > > > Yes in fact it does. > > Can we set the issue tracker to ping this list? Or Slaves? I'd > think that would do it ... > If currently pings to... hmmm well there are two, there is pmt and pgweb. PMT pings to sysadmins, I don't know where pgweb goes. Dave, Magnus... should we have pgweb ping to this list? Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH42T+ATb/zqfZUUQRAtOrAKCkhCIA+PdJh3pJu0VE/pSccAywTACfTWlY c5NqvfMZybdeZqkHNUC1W6s= =qppF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > If currently pings to... hmmm well there are two, there is pmt and > pgweb. PMT pings to sysadmins, I don't know where pgweb goes. > > Dave, Magnus... should we have pgweb ping to this list? I'm currently thinking that we should just move sysadmins and slaves (maybe change to webteam?) to a server that is completely independent of any of the infrastructure that we're managing through them. Probably we should move Nagios there as well, as it's currently on the same box as a few other things. As for what goes where, pmt -> sysadmins, pgweb -> slaves, and lets move the alerts to a seperate list. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
On Thursday 20 March 2008 04:47, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:01:53 -0700
> >
> > Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:32 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > > Please apply
> > >
> > > I'm confused. This is the version that reverts the changes that I made
> > > today, per the page you sent me.
> >
> > Wonderful.
> >
> > I wonder if the request got greylisted or something and I applied an
> > older version.
>
> Next time we only apply patches. There's no sensible way to compare
> old and new versions before committing otherwise.
>
>
co newfile file
svn diff file
?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Thursday 20 March 2008 04:47, Dave Page wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> > > Next time we only apply patches. There's no sensible way to compare > > old and new versions before committing otherwise. > > > > > > co newfile file > svn diff file I'll suggest that next time someone complains on -patches that a patch isn't in context diff format :-p -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
On Saturday 22 March 2008 11:51, Dave Page wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Robert Treat
>
> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 March 2008 04:47, Dave Page wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Joshua D. Drake
> > > <jd@commandprompt.com>
> > >
> > > Next time we only apply patches. There's no sensible way to compare
> > > old and new versions before committing otherwise.
> >
> > co newfile file
> > svn diff file
>
> I'll suggest that next time someone complains on -patches that a patch
> isn't in context diff format :-p
-patches is based on cvs :-P
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL