9.2 release notes, beta time?
I just talked to Tom about the 9.2 release notes. Do people want me to
write the 9.2 release notes? When do you think we will be ready for 9.2
beta?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
I just talked to Tom about the 9.2 release notes. Do people want me to
write the 9.2 release notes?
+1.
When do you think we will be ready for 9.2
beta?
Well, we've got a bunch of open issues, but most of them don't look
*too* serious. If everyone dropped what they're doing and worked on
them, I think we could be done in 2 weeks, but realistically I think
it's likely to take 1-2 months.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
When do you think we will be ready for 9.2
beta?
Well, we've got a bunch of open issues, but most of them don't look
*too* serious. If everyone dropped what they're doing and worked on
them, I think we could be done in 2 weeks, but realistically I think
it's likely to take 1-2 months.
Well, I would sure like to see a beta out sooner than that. I don't
think we necessarily have to resolve every known open issue before
we put out beta1. I believe we do need to resolve anything that would
force initdb (such as Peter's bytea_agg change), and of course we need
to write release notes so that beta testers know what to test.
At the same time, I'd like to light a fire under people to deal with
the open issues. I agree that it will take some time for all of
them to get dealt with, but it doesn't help if the responsible hackers
are procrastinating.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
When do you think we will be ready for 9.2
beta?Well, we've got a bunch of open issues, but most of them don't look
*too* serious. If everyone dropped what they're doing and worked on
them, I think we could be done in 2 weeks, but realistically I think
it's likely to take 1-2 months.Well, I would sure like to see a beta out sooner than that. I don't
think we necessarily have to resolve every known open issue before
we put out beta1. I believe we do need to resolve anything that would
force initdb (such as Peter's bytea_agg change), and of course we need
to write release notes so that beta testers know what to test.
Fair enough.
At the same time, I'd like to light a fire under people to deal with
the open issues. I agree that it will take some time for all of
them to get dealt with, but it doesn't help if the responsible hackers
are procrastinating.
The joys of an all-volunteer project. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:40:09PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
I just talked to Tom about the 9.2 release notes. �Do people want me to
write the 9.2 release notes?+1.
When do you think we will be ready for 9.2
beta?Well, we've got a bunch of open issues, but most of them don't look
*too* serious. If everyone dropped what they're doing and worked on
them, I think we could be done in 2 weeks, but realistically I think
it's likely to take 1-2 months.
I was hoping for at least two weeks because I am away Monday to Thursday
of next week for EnterpriseDB. I can do it by March 27, or the latest
March 30, that is 2-2.5 weeks from now.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:29:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:40:09PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
I just talked to Tom about the 9.2 release notes. �Do people want me to
write the 9.2 release notes?+1.
When do you think we will be ready for 9.2
beta?Well, we've got a bunch of open issues, but most of them don't look
*too* serious. If everyone dropped what they're doing and worked on
them, I think we could be done in 2 weeks, but realistically I think
it's likely to take 1-2 months.I was hoping for at least two weeks because I am away Monday to Thursday
of next week for EnterpriseDB. I can do it by March 27, or the latest
March 30, that is 2-2.5 weeks from now.
I had hoped to complete the release notes by March 30, but travel and
catching up on old stuff has delayed that. I will start working on them
now and have them ready before we start beta. If that is a problem,
please let me know.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I had hoped to complete the release notes by March 30, but travel and
catching up on old stuff has delayed that. I will start working on them
now and have them ready before we start beta. If that is a problem,
please let me know.
Well, we aren't ready for beta today anyway, AFAICT.
Would it be reasonable to shoot for wrapping 9.2beta1 next week?
(That would mean a wrap on Thursday May 3, if we follow the usual
type of release schedule.)
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I had hoped to complete the release notes by March 30, but travel and
catching up on old stuff has delayed that. I will start working on them
now and have them ready before we start beta. If that is a problem,
please let me know.Well, we aren't ready for beta today anyway, AFAICT.
Would it be reasonable to shoot for wrapping 9.2beta1 next week?
(That would mean a wrap on Thursday May 3, if we follow the usual
type of release schedule.)
I suspect that's a bit aggressive. We have a couple of issues that I
think we should fix before beta1:
- the pg_stat_statements cleanups we were discussing on the other
thread, since that's going to involve changing column names/types
- the Hot Standby vs. index-only scans stuff, which needs a WAL format
change, and is my top priority as soon as I get unburied
- SP-GiST is unsafe for use by hot standby slaves, since I think
queries returning wrong answers = bad
- http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1333124720-sup-6193@alvh.no-ip.org
I'm not sure we can commit to a timeline for beta until we know who is
taking care of each of those things.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I had hoped to complete the release notes by March 30, but travel and
catching up on old stuff has delayed that. I will start working on them
now and have them ready before we start beta. If that is a problem,
please let me know.Well, we aren't ready for beta today anyway, AFAICT.
Would it be reasonable to shoot for wrapping 9.2beta1 next week?
(That would mean a wrap on Thursday May 3, if we follow the usual
type of release schedule.)
I doubt we'll be able to produce installers that soon - first, we're
still building the build VMs for 9.2, and second, right now we're
having to update every existing build VM and then the 8.3 through 9.1
installers (which will require more QA than normal because of the
changes) due to the recent OpenSSL bug.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Would it be reasonable to shoot for wrapping 9.2beta1 next week?
I suspect that's a bit aggressive. We have a couple of issues that I
think we should fix before beta1:
- the pg_stat_statements cleanups we were discussing on the other
thread, since that's going to involve changing column names/types
- the Hot Standby vs. index-only scans stuff, which needs a WAL format
change, and is my top priority as soon as I get unburied
- SP-GiST is unsafe for use by hot standby slaves, since I think
queries returning wrong answers = bad
- http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1333124720-sup-6193@alvh.no-ip.org
I agree that fixing the first two before beta is a necessary thing.
I'm not convinced the other two are beta blockers. We should not have
a mindset of "there must be no known bugs in beta1"; we want to
parallelize not serialize this process, so that testing has to be able
to happen concurrently with fixing non-blocker bugs. I'd say that
anything that isn't going to require an initdb to fix, and that most
testers are unlikely to hit, ought not be a blocker.
I'm not sure we can commit to a timeline for beta until we know who is
taking care of each of those things.
I already promised to deal with the first one, and you are indicating
willingness to deal with the second, so I think we have the blockers
covered.
regards, tom lane
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Would it be reasonable to shoot for wrapping 9.2beta1 next week?
(That would mean a wrap on Thursday May 3, if we follow the usual
type of release schedule.)
I doubt we'll be able to produce installers that soon - first, we're
still building the build VMs for 9.2, and second, right now we're
having to update every existing build VM and then the 8.3 through 9.1
installers (which will require more QA than normal because of the
changes) due to the recent OpenSSL bug.
Mmm. How about two weeks from tomorrow, then? If we don't make that,
we won't have a beta till after PGCon, which would be a shame.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Would it be reasonable to shoot for wrapping 9.2beta1 next week?
(That would mean a wrap on Thursday May 3, if we follow the usual
type of release schedule.)I doubt we'll be able to produce installers that soon - first, we're
still building the build VMs for 9.2, and second, right now we're
having to update every existing build VM and then the 8.3 through 9.1
installers (which will require more QA than normal because of the
changes) due to the recent OpenSSL bug.Mmm. How about two weeks from tomorrow, then? If we don't make that,
we won't have a beta till after PGCon, which would be a shame.
That's probably achievable (putting together the build machines is no
small task). Worst case; the installers come out a few days later than
the source code. It's a first beta, so it wouldn't be the end of the
world.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I had hoped to complete the release notes by March 30, but travel and
catching up on old stuff has delayed that. I will start working on them
now and have them ready before we start beta. If that is a problem,
please let me know.Well, we aren't ready for beta today anyway, AFAICT.
Would it be reasonable to shoot for wrapping 9.2beta1 next week?
(That would mean a wrap on Thursday May 3, if we follow the usual
type of release schedule.)I suspect that's a bit aggressive. We have a couple of issues that I
think we should fix before beta1:
Yeh, perhaps a week later, but before PGCon definitely. I want to be
able to discuss future work without feeling guilty that we're still
wrapping the previous release.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
I suspect that's a bit aggressive. We have a couple of issues that I
think we should fix before beta1:
Hmmm. So are we looking at May 7? Or later?
I'd like to do some press work for this.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:16:02PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I suspect that's a bit aggressive. We have a couple of issues that I
think we should fix before beta1:Hmmm. So are we looking at May 7? Or later?
I'd like to do some press work for this.
Someone said one week as not enough, so I assumed a wrap on May 10 with
beta release on May 14.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 4/27/12 2:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:16:02PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I suspect that's a bit aggressive. We have a couple of issues that I
think we should fix before beta1:Hmmm. So are we looking at May 7? Or later?
I'd like to do some press work for this.
Someone said one week as not enough, so I assumed a wrap on May 10 with
beta release on May 14.
Doing a release on May 14 will be a challenge, thanks to people being on
airplanes to pgCon. We might want to verify availability from the
packagers.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:43:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 4/27/12 2:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:16:02PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I suspect that's a bit aggressive. We have a couple of issues that I
think we should fix before beta1:Hmmm. So are we looking at May 7? Or later?
I'd like to do some press work for this.
Someone said one week as not enough, so I assumed a wrap on May 10 with
beta release on May 14.Doing a release on May 14 will be a challenge, thanks to people being on
airplanes to pgCon. We might want to verify availability from the
packagers.
Do we want to do the normal package Thursday, release Monday process? I
assumed we did.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
On 4/27/12 2:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Someone said one week as not enough, so I assumed a wrap on May 10 with
beta release on May 14.
Doing a release on May 14 will be a challenge, thanks to people being on
airplanes to pgCon. We might want to verify availability from the
packagers.
Packagers wouldn't be the issue; their work should be done by the
Saturday at latest. The website crew might have a problem though.
The main gating factor here is whether Dave Page's crew can get the
Windows installers ready any sooner; given his previous comments,
I don't think that moving the wrap up a few days would change anything.
We could wrap next week if we were OK with not having Windows installers
at the announcement, but I bet you'll say that's a no-go.
regards, tom lane
Hi,
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 19:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The website crew might have a problem though.
Magnus is flying on 13th and 14th, Dave, Stefan and Thom are flying on
14th. I'm flying on 15th -- it seems I have some cycles for updating
website, I hope. Not sure about the others.
(As a side note, RPMs *may not* be ready, because I (and Magnus) will be
at PGDay Turkey on 12th, and will be busy over the whole weekend).
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org> writes:
(As a side note, RPMs *may not* be ready, because I (and Magnus) will be
at PGDay Turkey on 12th, and will be busy over the whole weekend).
Ugh. Maybe the whole idea of getting a beta out before PGCon is doomed.
Still, if we don't try for this schedule, we're looking at at least two
more weeks' slip, because we're surely not going to wrap during PGCon.
regards, tom lane
