Horton

Re: Draft release notes complete

Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>

View thread
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-09-09T18:52:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Expose track_iotiming information via pg_stat_statements.

  2. Rewrite GiST support code for rangetypes.

  3. Clean up a couple of box gist helper functions.

  4. Replace the "New Linear" GiST split algorithm for boxes and points with a

On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>> Why does this need to be tied into the build farm?  Someone can surely
>>> set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it
>>> used to work.  What's being proposed now just sounds like a lot of
>>> complication for little or no actual gain -- net loss in fact.
>>
>> It doesn't just build the docs. It makes the dist snapshots too.
> 
> Thus making the turnaround time on a docs build even slower ... ?
> 
>> And the old script often broke badly, IIRC.
> 
> The script broke on occasion, but the main problem was that it wasn't
> monitored.  Which is something that could have been fixed.
> 
>> The current setup doesn't install
>> anything if the build fails, which is a distinct improvement.
> 
> You mean it doesn't build the docs if the code build fails?  Would that
> really be an improvement?

why would we want to publish docs for something that fails to build
and/or fails to pass regression testing - to me code and the docs for it
are a combined thing and there is no point in pushing docs for something
that fails even basic testing...


Stefan