Обсуждение: Release versioning inconsistency
Hi list, The recent 9.2 beta releases have used a slightly different numbering scheme than all previous releases. It used to be that tarballs for version $VER were always available at: http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/source/v$VER/postgresql-$VER.tar.bz2 However, the new releases now use "v9.2.0beta2" for the directory name, but "9.2beta2" in the tarball file. No big deal for most people, but it will confuse people who have scripts to download PostgreSQL tarballs automatically (e.g. packagers). For example: http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/source/v9.2.0beta2/postgresql-9.2beta2.tar.bz2 Is there any reason behind this change? Regards, Marti
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote: > Hi list, > > The recent 9.2 beta releases have used a slightly different numbering > scheme than all previous releases. > > It used to be that tarballs for version $VER were always available at: > http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/source/v$VER/postgresql-$VER.tar.bz2 > > However, the new releases now use "v9.2.0beta2" for the directory > name, but "9.2beta2" in the tarball file. No big deal for most people, > but it will confuse people who have scripts to download PostgreSQL > tarballs automatically (e.g. packagers). > > For example: > http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/source/v9.2.0beta2/postgresql-9.2beta2.tar.bz2 > > Is there any reason behind this change? Not behind the first one. I believe that's just me and a bad memory - I got it wrong. (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much better to be inconsistent with previous versions) For beta2, the only reason was to keep it consistent with beta1. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is > *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much > better to be inconsistent with previous versions) Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"? Regards, Marti
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is >> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much >> better to be inconsistent with previous versions) > > Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and > stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final > release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"? That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual release as 9.2.0... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is >>> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much >>> better to be inconsistent with previous versions) >> >> Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and >> stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final >> release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"? > > That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we > named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual > release as 9.2.0... May be a symlink could be created just do fit the same pattern that other versions do and keeps the actual links (for beta) working. I'm using the same pattern in `pgvm` [1] and it is failing to fetch beta versions :( [1] https://github.com/guedes/pgvm/blob/master/include/sites regards -- Dickson S. Guedes mail/xmpp: guedes@guedesoft.net - skype: guediz http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br
On ons, 2012-06-20 at 13:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is > >> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much > >> better to be inconsistent with previous versions) > > > > Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and > > stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final > > release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"? > > That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we > named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual > release as 9.2.0... The final release was always going to be called 9.2.0, but naming the beta 9.2.0betaX is wrong. There was a previous discussion about that particular point.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On ons, 2012-06-20 at 13:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we
>> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual
>> release as 9.2.0...
> The final release was always going to be called 9.2.0, but naming the
> beta 9.2.0betaX is wrong. There was a previous discussion about that
> particular point.
Yes. There is no reason to change the naming scheme we have been using
for years now (at least since version_stamp.pl was invented for 7.4).
The only problem is that somebody got the name of the directory wrong on
the FTP server.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> On ons, 2012-06-20 at 13:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we >>> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual >>> release as 9.2.0... > >> The final release was always going to be called 9.2.0, but naming the >> beta 9.2.0betaX is wrong. There was a previous discussion about that >> particular point. > > Yes. There is no reason to change the naming scheme we have been using > for years now (at least since version_stamp.pl was invented for 7.4). > The only problem is that somebody got the name of the directory wrong on > the FTP server. If that wasn't clear, then yes, that was me. I don't recall the reason why using 9.2.0betax was actually wrong - i realize that's not the name of the version, so thereby the directory was wrong. But in what way would it be wrong to call the version that? Given that it would help with sorting. (And yes, this is a very long-forward question, more about 9.3, since we can't really go back and change the current filename..) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Dickson S. Guedes <listas@guedesoft.net> wrote: > 2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>>> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is >>>> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much >>>> better to be inconsistent with previous versions) >>> >>> Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and >>> stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final >>> release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"? >> >> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we >> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual >> release as 9.2.0... > > > May be a symlink could be created just do fit the same pattern that other > versions do and keeps the actual links (for beta) working. That we can do - in fact, done. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
2012/6/21 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Dickson S. Guedes <listas@guedesoft.net> wrote: >> 2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>: >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>>>> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is >>>>> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much >>>>> better to be inconsistent with previous versions) >>>> >>>> Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and >>>> stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final >>>> release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"? >>> >>> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we >>> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual >>> release as 9.2.0... >> >> >> May be a symlink could be created just do fit the same pattern that other >> versions do and keeps the actual links (for beta) working. > > That we can do - in fact, done. It works fine here, thanks! []s -- Dickson S. Guedes mail/xmpp: guedes@guedesoft.net - skype: guediz http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br
On tor, 2012-06-21 at 16:19 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Dickson S. Guedes <listas@guedesoft.net> wrote: > > 2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>: > >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >>>> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is > >>>> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much > >>>> better to be inconsistent with previous versions) > >>> > >>> Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and > >>> stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final > >>> release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"? > >> > >> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we > >> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual > >> release as 9.2.0... > > > > > > May be a symlink could be created just do fit the same pattern that other > > versions do and keeps the actual links (for beta) working. > > That we can do - in fact, done. Why not just move the whole thing and not increase the confusion? The press releases don't refer to the directory directly.
On tor, 2012-06-21 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I don't recall the reason why using 9.2.0betax was actually wrong - i > realize that's not the name of the version, so thereby the directory > was wrong. But in what way would it be wrong to call the version that? It's not the beta for 9.2.0, it's the beta for the 9.2 series. There is not 9.2.1betaX, after all. > Given that it would help with sorting. How does it help? 9.2.0, 9.2.0betaX, 9.2.1, ... ???