Thread

cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2009-11-25T15:27:42Z

Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
a few very out of date comments about cvs (really, nobody has a 28k8
modem and does cvs over it today. Even your cellphone is orders of
magnitude faster than that).

Other than this patch, I would suggest that we completely remove the
following two chapters:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/cvs-tree.html -- because
anybody doing anything with branching or tagging today is *not* going
to be using cvs, they will be using git. Let's not lead people down
the wrong path :-)


http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/cvsup.html -- does anybody
ever use this? It's a complete PITA to get cvsup working on any
platform I know of. And since we already allow both rsync and git to
get the full repository, there's not much point to it.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2009-11-25T21:07:59Z

On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
> a few very out of date comments about cvs

I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
added to the web site or the wiki.

(Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2009-11-25T21:15:19Z

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
>> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
>> a few very out of date comments about cvs
>
> I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
> added to the web site or the wiki.
>
> (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)

Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki?

I don't disagree - if people are fine with that, it sounds good to me.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2009-11-26T07:28:24Z

On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
> >> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
> >> a few very out of date comments about cvs
> >
> > I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
> > added to the web site or the wiki.
> >
> > (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)
> 
> Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki?

I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the
content is adequately covered elsewhere.

In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section "Getting
the Source", which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate
instructions on the web site.

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2009-11-26T11:29:10Z

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
>> >> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
>> >> a few very out of date comments about cvs
>> >
>> > I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
>> > added to the web site or the wiki.
>> >
>> > (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)
>>
>> Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki?
>
> I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the
> content is adequately covered elsewhere.
>
> In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section "Getting
> the Source", which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate
> instructions on the web site.

I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
documentation is better-written and easier to navigate.  Yeah, the
part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without
throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

...Robert

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> — 2009-11-26T11:44:19Z

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section "Getting
>> the Source", which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate
>> instructions on the web site.
> 
> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. 

I agree in general, but information about version control isn't really
part of the product. For example, if we switch from CVS to Git, and
decide to pull the plug on the CVS server (hypotethically; in reality
I'm sure we'd leave the CVS server around for historical purposes), the
information becomes obsolete.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2009-11-26T11:44:53Z

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:29, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
>>> >> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
>>> >> a few very out of date comments about cvs
>>> >
>>> > I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
>>> > added to the web site or the wiki.
>>> >
>>> > (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)
>>>
>>> Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki?
>>
>> I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the
>> content is adequately covered elsewhere.
>>
>> In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section "Getting
>> the Source", which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate
>> instructions on the web site.
>
> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate.  Yeah, the
> part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Well, my original suggestion had it still there, just not the
documentation that's not really ours to maintain (like how tags and
branches work in cvs). Are you ok with that path? (We already
reference the wiki for "how to work with CVS", so there is nothing new
there)


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2009-11-26T12:30:22Z

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:29, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>> > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
>>>> >> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
>>>> >> a few very out of date comments about cvs
>>>> >
>>>> > I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
>>>> > added to the web site or the wiki.
>>>> >
>>>> > (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)
>>>>
>>>> Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki?
>>>
>>> I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the
>>> content is adequately covered elsewhere.
>>>
>>> In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section "Getting
>>> the Source", which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate
>>> instructions on the web site.
>>
>> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
>> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
>> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate.  Yeah, the
>> part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without
>> throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
>
> Well, my original suggestion had it still there, just not the
> documentation that's not really ours to maintain (like how tags and
> branches work in cvs). Are you ok with that path? (We already
> reference the wiki for "how to work with CVS", so there is nothing new
> there)

Barring protests, I tend to agree that there's little point in keeping
the CVSup documentation around.  I don't think it would be a bad thing
to have a little bit of well-written documentation on CVS branches and
tags, especially if it covered things like our particular tagging and
branching conventions.  But the current contents of that page don't
appear to be worth much, so I don't think we'd be losing much if we
got rid of it.  Of course if someone wanted to rewrite it to be more
useful that might be even better, but I'm not sure anyone wants to put
in the effort.

...Robert

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2009-11-26T15:38:04Z

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
>> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
>> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. 

> I agree in general, but information about version control isn't really
> part of the product. For example, if we switch from CVS to Git, and
> decide to pull the plug on the CVS server (hypotethically; in reality
> I'm sure we'd leave the CVS server around for historical purposes), the
> information becomes obsolete.

If our docs are supposed to cover only information that's not subject
to change, they'll become quite short.  I agree with Robert that moving
the info from the SGML docs to the wiki isn't an improvement.

			regards, tom lane

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2009-11-26T15:56:39Z

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 16:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
>>> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
>>> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate.
>
>> I agree in general, but information about version control isn't really
>> part of the product. For example, if we switch from CVS to Git, and
>> decide to pull the plug on the CVS server (hypotethically; in reality
>> I'm sure we'd leave the CVS server around for historical purposes), the
>> information becomes obsolete.
>
> If our docs are supposed to cover only information that's not subject
> to change, they'll become quite short.  I agree with Robert that moving
> the info from the SGML docs to the wiki isn't an improvement.

I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but
what about the removal of those two chapters suggested?


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2009-11-26T16:07:54Z

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but
> what about the removal of those two chapters suggested?

I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual.
As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching
and tagging conventions would be a lot more useful.

			regards, tom lane

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> — 2009-11-26T16:36:01Z

peter_e@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
> On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
>> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
>> a few very out of date comments about cvs
>
> I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
> added to the web site or the wiki.
>
> (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)

I think I'd rather see the documentation repaired in the CVS repository
where it happens to reside today.

Wikis have a habit of getting out of date in ways that make them even
more difficult to rectify, because the data is frequently structured in
a way that doesn't make it particularly easy to pull it out and
transform it into other forms.

Now, if someone knows a way of creating a Git repository[1] that tracks,
change-for-change, everything going on in a MediaWiki repository in a
textual form that would allow one to monitor everything going on, and
possibly even inject changes, that *would* be something.

(To *my* mind, the ultimate wiki platform that I have seen lately is
ikiwiki <http://ikiwiki.info/>, which manages the wiki in an SCM,
"compiling" the pages into HTML whenever things are changed.  Should
cope with heavy query load rather well!  But I digress...)

Footnotes: 
[1]  Or Darcs, Mercurial, SVN, or whatever...
-- 
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','linuxfinances.info').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/
Dijkstra probably hates me
(Linus Torvalds, in kernel/sched.c)

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2009-11-29T12:38:12Z

Robert Haas wrote:
> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate.  Yeah, the
> part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software:  ;-)

     This initial checkout is a little slower than simply downloading
     a <filename>tar.gz</filename> file; expect it to take 40 minutes
     or so if you have a 28.8K modem.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2009-11-29T14:47:17Z

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
>> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
>> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate.  Yeah, the
>> part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without
>> throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

> Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software:  ;-)

The depressing thing is we can't even blame that on Berkeley ...
if memory serves, I wrote it :-(

			regards, tom lane

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2009-11-29T18:16:32Z

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
> >> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The
> >> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate.  Yeah, the
> >> part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without
> >> throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
> 
> > Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software:  ;-)
> 
> The depressing thing is we can't even blame that on Berkeley ...
> if memory serves, I wrote it :-(

There is no mention of paper tape or punch cards in our docs.  :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> — 2009-11-29T21:38:52Z

2009/11/29 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
> Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software:  ;-)
>
>     This initial checkout is a little slower than simply downloading
>     a <filename>tar.gz</filename> file; expect it to take 40 minutes
>     or so if you have a 28.8K modem.

Yes, and what about all the people using carrier pidgeon to download
Postgres?  I think our documentation is neglecting this substantial
and vital portion of our user community.

Cheers,
BJ

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> — 2009-11-30T01:03:41Z

Brendan Jurd wrote:
> 2009/11/29 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
>> Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software:  ;-)
>>
>>     This initial checkout is a little slower than simply downloading
>>     a <filename>tar.gz</filename> file; expect it to take 40 minutes
>>     or so if you have a 28.8K modem.
> 
> Yes, and what about all the people using carrier pidgeon to download
> Postgres?  I think our documentation is neglecting this substantial
> and vital portion of our user community.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a carrier pigeon with a flash
card tied to his leg. [1]

   "11-month-old bird armed with a 4GB memory stick... the carrier pigeon
   delivered 4GB of data 60 miles in a little over an hour"


[1] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Carrier-Pigeon-Officially-Beats-DSL-104393

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> — 2009-11-30T19:58:25Z

Chris Browne wrote:
> Wikis have a habit of getting out of date in ways that make them even
> more difficult to rectify, because the data is frequently structured in
> a way that doesn't make it particularly easy to pull it out and
> transform it into other forms.
>   
The standard way to backup a Mediawiki install is to export to XML: 

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Export

At which point you can transform it as easily as any other structured 
document and then re-import.

Given that the pages on the PostgreSQL wiki about CVS and Git have been 
the most up to date resources on those topics available since shortly 
after their respective creation dates, I'm not sure what one could 
criticize about them as an information source in this area.

-- 
Greg Smith    2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com  www.2ndQuadrant.com

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2009-12-07T15:08:28Z

2009/11/26 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but
>> what about the removal of those two chapters suggested?
>
> I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual.
> As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching
> and tagging conventions would be a lot more useful.

Here's an updated patch that does what I believe the consensus of this
thread was. Unless objected, I will commit this later tonight. Patch
now does:

* As before, update cvs documentation and add git documentation
* Remove cvsup documentation
* Remove cvs internal documentation
* Add a link to appendix H (the source code repository) from the
general getting the source chapter.

It does not add any proper documentation of exactly how we deal with
branches and tags at a useful level - this will come later.

I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least
the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS
documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally
backpatch things like this though, so comments on that?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

David Fetter <david@fetter.org> — 2009-12-07T15:16:43Z

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 04:08:28PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2009/11/26 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but
> >> what about the removal of those two chapters suggested?
> >
> > I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual.
> > As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching
> > and tagging conventions would be a lot more useful.
> 
> Here's an updated patch that does what I believe the consensus of this
> thread was. Unless objected, I will commit this later tonight. Patch
> now does:
> 
> * As before, update cvs documentation and add git documentation
> * Remove cvsup documentation
> * Remove cvs internal documentation
> * Add a link to appendix H (the source code repository) from the
> general getting the source chapter.
> 
> It does not add any proper documentation of exactly how we deal with
> branches and tags at a useful level - this will come later.
> 
> I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least
> the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS
> documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally
> backpatch things like this though, so comments on that?

+1 for back-patching.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2009-12-07T15:47:51Z

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least
> the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS
> documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally
> backpatch things like this though, so comments on that?

The sort of people who would actually have a use for the information
are unlikely to be looking at back branches, so I don't particularly
see the point.  But if you wanna do the work ...

			regards, tom lane

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2009-12-07T15:49:12Z

2009/12/7 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least
>> the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS
>> documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally
>> backpatch things like this though, so comments on that?
>
> The sort of people who would actually have a use for the information
> are unlikely to be looking at back branches, so I don't particularly
> see the point.  But if you wanna do the work ...

I'd do 8.4, becuase that's what shows up under /current/ on the website.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: cvs chapters in our docs

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> — 2009-12-07T15:59:00Z

Magnus Hagander escribió:
> 2009/12/7 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least
> >> the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS
> >> documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally
> >> backpatch things like this though, so comments on that?
> >
> > The sort of people who would actually have a use for the information
> > are unlikely to be looking at back branches, so I don't particularly
> > see the point.  But if you wanna do the work ...
> 
> I'd do 8.4, becuase that's what shows up under /current/ on the website.

8.4 makes sense to me.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support