Hi,

Is there a plan to wrap up 9.2 Alpha 1 before the next commitfest?

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

Search Discussions

  • Bruce Momjian at Sep 6, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
    Is there a plan to wrap up 9.2 Alpha 1 before the next commitfest?
    We talked about it on core and no one seems interested in doing the
    packaging. :-(

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Devrim Gündüz at Sep 6, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 10:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

    Devrim GNDZ wrote:
    Is there a plan to wrap up 9.2 Alpha 1 before the next commitfest?
    We talked about it on core and no one seems interested in doing the
    packaging. :-(
    Oh, what if noone will be interested in packaging until the last
    commitfest?

    We need people to start testing features, without having to use git or
    such.
    --
    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
  • Peter Eisentraut at Sep 10, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    On tis, 2011-09-06 at 17:25 +0300, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
    Oh, what if noone will be interested in packaging until the last
    commitfest?
    Then nothing will happen.
    We need people to start testing features, without having to use git or
    such.
    You can download daily snapshot tarballs.
  • Robert Haas at Sep 6, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    2011/9/6 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
    Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
    Is there a plan to wrap up 9.2 Alpha 1 before the next commitfest?
    We talked about it on core and no one seems interested in doing the
    packaging.  :-(
    Well I don't particularly mind pushing a tag and bundling it, but I
    guess the question is whether we actually want to do alpha releases at
    all. I assume that core's reluctance to do this stems from being
    dubious about its value, which seems like something that we should
    discuss more broadly.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Bruce Momjian at Sep 6, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Robert Haas wrote:
    2011/9/6 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
    Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
    Is there a plan to wrap up 9.2 Alpha 1 before the next commitfest?
    We talked about it on core and no one seems interested in doing the
    packaging. ?:-(
    Well I don't particularly mind pushing a tag and bundling it, but I
    guess the question is whether we actually want to do alpha releases at
    all. I assume that core's reluctance to do this stems from being
    dubious about its value, which seems like something that we should
    discuss more broadly.
    Yes, it has always been a time vs. value question. I am not sure how I
    feel on the matter but I am away too often to help anyway.

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Josh Berkus at Sep 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Yes, it has always been a time vs. value question. I am not sure how I
    feel on the matter but I am away too often to help anyway.
    I think the alphas have been extremely valuable for testing. And with
    some of the stuff going into CF1 and CF2 for 9.2, we really need some
    early testing.

    Or, to put it another way: if we don't release an Alpha2, then we're
    going to need to do a packaged alpha with Haas's performance patches anyway.

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Peter Eisentraut at Sep 10, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    On tis, 2011-09-06 at 11:41 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
    I think the alphas have been extremely valuable for testing.
    That's not my recollection. Obviously, it's hard to measure this one
    way or the other, but I don't recall there being a lot of test reports
    from people who are not already contributors and could have used some
    other way to get the code.
  • Joshua Berkus at Sep 10, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    That's not my recollection. Obviously, it's hard to measure this one
    way or the other, but I don't recall there being a lot of test
    reports
    from people who are not already contributors and could have used some
    other way to get the code.
    Do we have download stats for the alphas? Dave?

    --Josh
  • Dave Page at Sep 10, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    On Saturday, September 10, 2011, Joshua Berkus wrote:
    That's not my recollection. Obviously, it's hard to measure this one
    way or the other, but I don't recall there being a lot of test
    reports
    from people who are not already contributors and could have used some
    other way to get the code.
    Do we have download stats for the alphas? Dave?
    Download numbers for the installers were bordering on noise compared to the
    GA builds last time I looked, double figures iirc. I don't know about the
    tarballs offhand and can't check ATM.

    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Joshua Berkus at Sep 10, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Download numbers for the installers were bordering on noise compared
    to the GA builds last time I looked, double figures iirc. I don't
    know about the tarballs offhand and can't check ATM.
    Can you check when you get a chance? I know that the DL numbers for the first alphas were very low, but I'm wondering about Alpha 3, 4 and 5.

    The main value of the alphas is that our Windows users aren't going to do any testing which requires source code compile. But if they're not doing any testing anyway, then there's no real point.

    There's PR value in doing the alphas, but not enough to justify the effort involved.

    If we're not going to do regular alphas, I would push to do one special alpha release which includes all of the locking code improvements and similar features added to date.
  • Dave Page at Sep 12, 2011 at 9:23 am

    On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Joshua Berkus wrote:
    Download numbers for the installers were bordering on noise compared
    to the GA builds last time I looked, double figures iirc. I don't
    know about the tarballs offhand and can't check ATM.
    Can you check when you get a chance?   I know that the DL numbers for the first alphas were very low, but I'm wondering about Alpha 3, 4 and 5.
    186_www=# select count(*) from clickthrus where path like
    '%postgresql-9.1alpha1.tar.%' and ts >= '2009-09-01';
    count
    -------
    1431
    (1 row)

    186_www=# select count(*) from clickthrus where path like
    '%postgresql-9.1alpha2.tar.%' and ts >= '2009-09-01';
    count
    -------
    1335
    (1 row)

    186_www=# select count(*) from clickthrus where path like
    '%postgresql-9.1alpha3.tar.%' and ts >= '2009-09-01';
    count
    -------
    1127
    (1 row)

    186_www=# select count(*) from clickthrus where path like
    '%postgresql-9.1alpha4.tar.%' and ts >= '2009-09-01';
    count
    -------
    2011
    (1 row)

    186_www=# select count(*) from clickthrus where path like
    '%postgresql-9.1alpha5.tar.%' and ts >= '2009-09-01';
    count
    -------
    929
    (1 row)

    and for comparison:

    186_www=# select count(*) from clickthrus where path like
    '%postgresql-9.0.3.tar.%' and ts >= '2009-09-01';
    count
    -------
    26211
    (1 row)

    186_www=# select count(*) from clickthrus where path like
    '%postgresql-9.0.4.tar.%' and ts >= '2009-09-01';
    count
    -------
    34769
    (1 row)

    Note that these are only numbers from people who click through the
    flags pages on the website. We don't have numbers for people who
    download directly from the FTP site or a mirror.

    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Josh Berkus at Sep 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    On 9/12/11 2:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
    Note that these are only numbers from people who click through the
    flags pages on the website. We don't have numbers for people who
    download directly from the FTP site or a mirror.
    I'd say that 1200 downloads of each alpha is pretty significant. If
    even 1/4 of those people actually do testing, then that's a lot more
    than we had for 8.3. It's also a heck of a lot more than I'd expect.

    Sure, it's 5% of an update versions' downloads. So what? We don't
    expect most people do to alpha testing. But if *hundreds* of people are
    doing alpha testing, we want them to keep doing it.

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Robert Haas at Sep 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
    On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Joshua Berkus wrote:
    Download numbers for the installers were bordering on noise compared
    to the GA builds last time I looked, double figures iirc. I don't
    know about the tarballs offhand and can't check ATM.
    Can you check when you get a chance?   I know that the DL numbers for the first alphas were very low, but I'm wondering about Alpha 3, 4 and 5.
    [ >1100 downloads for alphas1-3, >2000 downloads for alpha4, ~900 downloads for alpha5 ]
    Hmm, that seems pretty respectable, all things considered.

    Honestly, I'm not sure how to feel about this. As a practical
    matter, I suspect that the value of alphas early in the release cycle
    is limited. Most of the big ticket features that people are going to
    be interested in testing tend to arrive late in the release cycle. If
    you look at the 9.1 release notes, the first commit to implement any
    portion of a feature that made the "major features" list for the
    release was my commit to add SECURITY LABEL, which happened on
    September 27, 2010. As of the turn of the year, we had 2.5 of the 10
    features that ultimately made that list in the tree. IMHO, we should
    be making a more concerted effort to get more of our major features
    done and committed sooner, but since we aren't, testing of early
    alphas seems likely to be a fairly unrewarding activity. Stability
    testing is likely going to be largely useless (because there will be
    lots more code churn just before feature freeze), and feature testing
    is going to be confined to the relatively limited amount of stuff that
    gets done and committed early.

    I certainly think there is value in pushing an alpha release after
    CF4, and maybe even after CF3. Whether or not it's worthwhile to do
    them for earlier CFs I'm less certain about, but there seem to be
    several people speaking up and saying that they like having alpha
    releases, and if the hold-up here is just that we need someone to tag
    and bundle, I'm certainly willing to sign on the dotted line for that
    much. We'd still need someone to write release notes, though,
    probably someone to arrange for the minimal amount of necessary PR
    work (announcements, etc.), and (somewhat optionally) packagers.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Peter Eisentraut at Sep 12, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    On mån, 2011-09-12 at 10:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
    I certainly think there is value in pushing an alpha release after
    CF4, and maybe even after CF3.
    Yes, that makes sense. Although I was surprised to see that the
    download numbers dropped off significantly for the later alphas.
    Whether or not it's worthwhile to do
    them for earlier CFs I'm less certain about, but there seem to be
    several people speaking up and saying that they like having alpha
    releases, and if the hold-up here is just that we need someone to tag
    and bundle, I'm certainly willing to sign on the dotted line for that
    much. We'd still need someone to write release notes, though,
    Writing the release notes is really the main part of the work. Bundling
    the release takes 15 minutes, writing the announcement takes 15 minutes
    (copy and paste), writing the release notes takes about 2 days.
    probably someone to arrange for the minimal amount of necessary PR
    work (announcements, etc.), and (somewhat optionally) packagers.
    We've tried that in the past, and haven't had much impact.
  • Robert Haas at Sep 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    On mån, 2011-09-12 at 10:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
    I certainly think there is value in pushing an alpha release after
    CF4, and maybe even after CF3.
    Yes, that makes sense.  Although I was surprised to see that the
    download numbers dropped off significantly for the later alphas.
    IIUC, alpha4 got the most, I guess because that was the first one that
    was alleged to be feature-complete. alpha5 had the least, but that's
    probably because it was just a bunch of bug fixes over alpha4, but not
    enough to make the result beta-quality, thus less interesting. Also,
    I think that may have been the one we forgot to announce.
    Whether or not it's worthwhile to do
    them for earlier CFs I'm less certain about, but there seem to be
    several people speaking up and saying that they like having alpha
    releases, and if the hold-up here is just that we need someone to tag
    and bundle, I'm certainly willing to sign on the dotted line for that
    much.  We'd still need someone to write release notes, though,
    Writing the release notes is really the main part of the work.  Bundling
    the release takes 15 minutes, writing the announcement takes 15 minutes
    (copy and paste), writing the release notes takes about 2 days.
    Yep. So perhaps the question is whether anyone's willing to do that work.
    probably someone to arrange for the minimal amount of necessary PR
    work (announcements, etc.), and (somewhat optionally) packagers.
    We've tried that in the past, and haven't had much impact.
    I think we at least need to announce the releases. Packaging is
    optional, but it's nice if people are willing to do it, and I would
    assume most packagers have this fairly well automated.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Josh Berkus at Sep 12, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Writing the release notes is really the main part of the work. Bundling
    the release takes 15 minutes, writing the announcement takes 15 minutes
    (copy and paste), writing the release notes takes about 2 days.
    Yeah, but this shaved a lot of effort/delay off doing the final release
    notes.

    Also, you could get more community help on the release notes if you
    wikified them the way you did the first time.

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Peter Eisentraut at Sep 12, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    On mån, 2011-09-12 at 09:43 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
    Writing the release notes is really the main part of the work. Bundling
    the release takes 15 minutes, writing the announcement takes 15 minutes
    (copy and paste), writing the release notes takes about 2 days.
    Yeah, but this shaved a lot of effort/delay off doing the final release
    notes.
    It did? AFAICT, the final release notes were created from scratch and
    the alpha release notes deleted.
  • Bruce Momjian at Sep 13, 2011 at 12:40 am

    Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    On m?n, 2011-09-12 at 09:43 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
    Writing the release notes is really the main part of the work. Bundling
    the release takes 15 minutes, writing the announcement takes 15 minutes
    (copy and paste), writing the release notes takes about 2 days.
    Yeah, but this shaved a lot of effort/delay off doing the final release
    notes.
    It did? AFAICT, the final release notes were created from scratch and
    the alpha release notes deleted.
    Yes, that is what happened. I did the 9.1 release notes from scratch,
    and Robert Haas looked over the alpha notes and mine and found mine more
    complete. He did move some wording from the alpha releases into the
    final release notes. I think Robert has the best perspective on this
    issue.

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Robert Haas at Sep 13, 2011 at 3:09 am

    On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
    Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    On m?n, 2011-09-12 at 09:43 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
    Writing the release notes is really the main part of the work.  Bundling
    the release takes 15 minutes, writing the announcement takes 15 minutes
    (copy and paste), writing the release notes takes about 2 days.
    Yeah, but this shaved a lot of effort/delay off doing the final release
    notes.
    It did?  AFAICT, the final release notes were created from scratch and
    the alpha release notes deleted.
    Yes, that is what happened.  I did the 9.1 release notes from scratch,
    and Robert Haas looked over the alpha notes and mine and found mine more
    complete.  He did move some wording from the alpha releases into the
    final release notes.  I think Robert has the best perspective on this
    issue.
    I don't have much of an opinion on this, honestly. I think that
    whoever did the alpha release notes tried to hit the highlights,
    whereas Bruce went for something more in-depth. You could make an
    argument for either approach.

    I think if the alpha release notes were done with a clear idea in mind
    of producing something like what Bruce turned out, it wouldn't be
    necessary for Bruce to do it over again. The problem is that once you
    start leaving things out, it's very difficult to figure out exactly
    what got left out without redoing the whole process ab initio. On the
    flip side, I cross-referenced the alpha release notes with Bruce's,
    and found a few things that Bruce had mysteriously omitted or to which
    he had given short shrift. So there is potentially at least a little
    bit of value in doing the process twice - it helps you catch things
    that may have gotten dropped.

    Having done some work on this, I do NOT believe the previously-offered
    contention that this work can't be done incrementally. I think it
    could. After each CF, Bruce, or someone else, could go through all
    the commits and produce a list of items. As the release wore on, it
    might be necessary to subdivide some of the categories or recategorize
    things, but that I don't think it would be unmanageable. The whole
    process seems reasonably straightforward, just somewhat
    time-consuming. The main challenge seems to be making sure you don't
    lose things.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Andy Colson at Sep 10, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    On 09/10/2011 02:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    On tis, 2011-09-06 at 11:41 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
    I think the alphas have been extremely valuable for testing.
    That's not my recollection. Obviously, it's hard to measure this one
    way or the other, but I don't recall there being a lot of test reports
    from people who are not already contributors and could have used some
    other way to get the code.
    As a tester, I'll pull from git. I like a quick update from git pull.

    When I'm playing with patches, its a simple:

    git reset --hard
    patch < ...

    I can't speak for others, but I find no benefit from a packaged alpha release.

    -Andy
  • Marti Raudsepp at Sep 10, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 22:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    but I don't recall there being a lot of test reports
    from people who are not already contributors and could have used some
    other way to get the code.
    I, for one, do use alpha tarballs on my dev machines (when working on
    apps that use PostgreSQL). It gives me a concrete schedule to update
    them that's not too frequent and I can tell whether they need updating
    just by glancing at the version string.

    If I was using git, I'd probably have some machines lagging hopelessly
    behind and always confused about which version is which.

    I also maintain an Arch Linux community package for testing versions,
    that has at least one other user:
    https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31562

    But it's probably not worth releasing alphas for us two alone. :)

    Regards,
    Marti
  • Peter Eisentraut at Sep 10, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    On lör, 2011-09-10 at 23:29 +0300, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
    I, for one, do use alpha tarballs on my dev machines (when working on
    apps that use PostgreSQL). It gives me a concrete schedule to update
    them that's not too frequent and I can tell whether they need updating
    just by glancing at the version string.

    If I was using git, I'd probably have some machines lagging hopelessly
    behind and always confused about which version is which.
    Well, that's another point. If you're doing constant testing, do we
    really want you testing code that is several weeks old? If you
    discovered an issue, the first response would most likely be, upgrade to
    the latest state of development.
  • Tom Lane at Sep 10, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Peter Eisentraut writes:
    On tis, 2011-09-06 at 11:41 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
    I think the alphas have been extremely valuable for testing.
    That's not my recollection. Obviously, it's hard to measure this one
    way or the other, but I don't recall there being a lot of test reports
    from people who are not already contributors and could have used some
    other way to get the code.
    Presumably the people an alpha release would serve are those who aren't
    in a position to build the code from source; since those who are can use
    a nightly snapshot or just build from a git pull. So the question is
    how big an audience is interested in testing alpha-grade code but do not
    have build infrastructure. I would agree that that's a small fraction
    on the Unix side of the fence, but I'm a lot less convinced that there's
    no market for it among Windows users.

    Of course, this means that just building a source tarball marked
    "alpha1" isn't real useful. If we're going to do alpha releases, we
    have to have buy-in from packagers (or at least from the Windows
    installer team) to do follow-on package wrapping.

    Josh asked about what was the download count for the alpha installers.
    I don't think that's a relevant statistic; the number of people willing
    to test alphas is certainly going to be small. What matters is the
    value of test reports we get back from them. I'm not sure that we have
    that information; people may specify that they're testing alphaN, but
    they tend not to say whether they got an installer or built it
    themselves.

    regards, tom lane
  • Peter Eisentraut at Sep 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    On lör, 2011-09-10 at 16:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
    Of course, this means that just building a source tarball marked
    "alpha1" isn't real useful. If we're going to do alpha releases, we
    have to have buy-in from packagers (or at least from the Windows
    installer team) to do follow-on package wrapping.
    Yeah, and we aimed for that initially, but it didn't happen. And
    especially the Windows installers have the highest overhead of any of
    the packaging efforts, so it's unclear how to get them on board
    consistently.
  • Peter Eisentraut at Sep 10, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    On tis, 2011-09-06 at 13:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
    2011/9/6 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
    Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
    Is there a plan to wrap up 9.2 Alpha 1 before the next commitfest?
    We talked about it on core and no one seems interested in doing the
    packaging. :-(
    Well I don't particularly mind pushing a tag and bundling it, but I
    guess the question is whether we actually want to do alpha releases at
    all. I assume that core's reluctance to do this stems from being
    dubious about its value, which seems like something that we should
    discuss more broadly.
    One point, which was already raised last year around this time, was that
    it does seem weird to have alphas for release N+1 while beta for release
    N is still going on. This year the start of N+1 was even earlier than
    last year.
  • Devrim Gündüz at Sep 11, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:49 +0300, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
    Is there a plan to wrap up 9.2 Alpha 1 before the next commitfest?
    <...>

    Ok, so if noone is willing to produce alpha's (which is sad), we need to
    change the text in here:

    http://www.postgresql.org/developer/alpha

    --
    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

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedSep 6, '11 at 1:49p
activeSep 13, '11 at 3:09a
posts27
users9
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase