Re: Linux Downloads page change

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:13:18AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> >
> > We have had the discussion before, and I was pretty sure it ended up
> > in "yes, it should be fixed". But it doesn't change the fact that the
> > repository claimed there had been no changes for *7 months*, certainly
> > not 3 days. Which also agrees very well with the logs on
> > git.postgresql.org.
>
> I'm not disputing that, and never have.
>
> > So clearly there is something that doesn't work in this process.
>
> It works exactly as it always has. No, I haven't got round to
> automating the pushes yet, largely because I've had 1001 other things
> to do, the vast majority of which will benefit far more users and
> community members in one way or another. I wasn't aware that you
> considered this to be such a high priority item compared to all the
> other tasks I have on my plate.

I believe the significant point is that should Dave, EnterpriseDB, etc.
disappear tomorrow, the community _must_ have the instructions available
to continue producing binary releases. "Asking for updated
instructions" is obviously impossible if those people/entities
disappear, so having current instructions always publicly available is a
requirement.

My point is that this not something that gets mixed in with other things
someone does for the community --- it is a requirement, and if it can't
be guaranteed, the community needs to rethink these binaries. I am fine
with people forgetting stuff, but when someone says it is on my list of
other things I do --- that is unacceptable.

As I understand it now, the system is automated so the instructions will
always be current, right? Are there any other "primary"
(non-thrird-party) downloads on our website that don't have current
build instructions?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +