From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Alpha releases: How to tag |
Date: | 2009-08-03 16:20:11 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c0908030920r4e9056b1md766e3ca90b68399@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 17:32, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 10:44:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> and it doesn't scale to consider the possibility that we might want
>>> to re-release an alpha after fixing some particularly evil bug. A
>>> tag without a branch won't handle that either.
>
>> Is this a use case? I truly hope nobody will try using a beta, let
>> alone an alpha, in production. Do we need to provide for such a
>> possibility? I don't recall that we've ever back-patched a beta, or
>> even a release candidate.
>
> I don't really know if it's a use-case or not; I just have a feeling
> that if we use a release procedure that guarantees we can't do it,
> we'll live to regret that.
Agreed.
> The bug-fixing situation for betas and RCs is a bit different because
> it's expected that there will be a compatible update available shortly.
> So you can usually assume that updating to the next beta/RC/release will
> fix whatever problems got found. Alphas are going to be out there on
> their own with absolutely no expectation that the next alpha is
> catversion-compatible. And I doubt we'd bother generating pg_migrator
> builds that work for pairs of alpha releases.
>
> I agree with you that it'd be insane to run anything mission-critical on
> an alpha build; but I could see someone having loaded up quite a lot of
> test data on one. (If we aren't hoping for some pretty serious testing
> of these releases, I am not sure what is the point of doing them at all.)
> So it seems to me that having the ability to fix show-stopper bugs
> without forcing a migration to a later alpha would be a good thing.
> Maybe we'll never need it, or maybe we will.
I think the alpha->alpha migration would actually be very useful to
these testers. That'll get them onto the new alpha. I think that's
actually a lot more important than alpha->release or release->next
alpha.
I haven't actually looked into pg_migrator enough to know how likely
it is that it'll "just work" going alpha->alpha when there have only
been "normal" changes? How invasive are the changes that actually
require pg_migrator to be touched at all?
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-03 16:23:39 | Re: Split-up ECPG patches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-03 16:19:40 | Re: Alpha releases: How to tag |