It looks to me like there are now *two* copies of the built manpages in
the 7.3.6 tarball, as well as some extraneous .md5 files:

Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man-7.3.tar.gz
Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man.tar.gz
Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: postgres.tar.gz
Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-base-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-docs-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-opt-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-test-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5

Not sure if it's worth trying again.  The embedded md5 files are wrong
(they correspond to the Mar 1 wrap) and so could confuse people, and the
extra manpage set is adding 150K to the tarball size.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:31:35 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
/pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...


On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> It looks to me like there are now *two* copies of the built manpages in
> the 7.3.6 tarball, as well as some extraneous .md5 files:
>
> Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man-7.3.tar.gz
> Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man.tar.gz
> Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: postgres.tar.gz
> Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-base-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
> Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-docs-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
> Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-opt-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
> Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql-test-7.3.6.tar.gz.md5
>
> Not sure if it's worth trying again.  The embedded md5 files are wrong
> (they correspond to the Mar 1 wrap) and so could confuse people, and the
> extra manpage set is adding 150K to the tarball size.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:45:01 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
> /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
> something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
> it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...

We are snakebit today, for certain :-(.  The repackaged main tarball has
the right files, but there is something wrong with the built HTML docs
(doc/postgres.tar.gz).  It is only 36K and seems to contain just

-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel   26163 2004-03-04 19:35 catalogs.gif
-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel    9485 2004-03-04 19:35 connections.gif
-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel    1151 2002-10-12 12:33 stylesheet.css

In the previous wrap it was 950K ...

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:04:23 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right 

k, trying again and trapping all the configure/make output, but other then
putting the files in the _1 directory, the script i the same ...

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> > Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
> > /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
> > something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
> > it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...
>
> We are snakebit today, for certain :-(.  The repackaged main tarball has
> the right files, but there is something wrong with the built HTML docs
> (doc/postgres.tar.gz).  It is only 36K and seems to contain just
>
> -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel   26163 2004-03-04 19:35 catalogs.gif
> -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel    9485 2004-03-04 19:35 connections.gif
> -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel    1151 2002-10-12 12:33 stylesheet.css
>
> In the previous wrap it was 950K ...
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:28:02 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right 

don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good:

svr1# tar tvzpf postgresql-7.3.6.tar.gz | grep postgres.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel  954585 Mar  4 21:33 2004 postgresql-7.3.6/doc/postgres.tar.gz
svr1# tar tvypf postgresql-7.3.6.tar.bz2 | grep postgres.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel  954585 Mar  4 21:33 2004 postgresql-7.3.6/doc/postgres.tar.gz


On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> > Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
> > /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
> > something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
> > it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...
>
> We are snakebit today, for certain :-(.  The repackaged main tarball has
> the right files, but there is something wrong with the built HTML docs
> (doc/postgres.tar.gz).  It is only 36K and seems to contain just
>
> -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel   26163 2004-03-04 19:35 catalogs.gif
> -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel    9485 2004-03-04 19:35 connections.gif
> -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel    1151 2002-10-12 12:33 stylesheet.css
>
> In the previous wrap it was 950K ...
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:47:46 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right 
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good:

It looks good to me too, at least the main tar.gz seems correct.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:06:13 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right 

'k, replaced with the good ones ...

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> > don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good:
>
> It looks good to me too, at least the main tar.gz seems correct.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:14:49 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right 
On Thursday 04 March 2004 07:45 pm, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into
> /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed
> something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so
> it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ...

Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible.  7.3.7 or 
7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper 
bag release (like 6.4.1 was).
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:00:49 -0500
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> writes:
> Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible.  7.3.7 or 
> 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper 
> bag release (like 6.4.1 was).

There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
need to change the version number.

The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
shouldn't have happened in the first place ...

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:28:26 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right 
On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
> need to change the version number.

> The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
> to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
> shouldn't have happened in the first place ...

There are now multiple copies of 7.3.6 out there.  How is a body to know which 
one to use?  On RPMs, as you well now, SOP is to increment the release on any 
change, including a typo.  This way there is no ambiguity.

This is not the first time tarballs have been streamlined.  I'm glad I hadn't 
built any RPMs yet.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:42:06 -0500
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> > There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
> > need to change the version number.
> 
> > The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
> > to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
> > shouldn't have happened in the first place ...
> 
> There are now multiple copies of 7.3.6 out there.  How is a body to know which 
> one to use?  On RPMs, as you well now, SOP is to increment the release on any 
> change, including a typo.  This way there is no ambiguity.
> 
> This is not the first time tarballs have been streamlined.  I'm glad I hadn't 
> built any RPMs yet.

My guess is that the packaging scripts are adjusted for new releases,
but then don't work perfectly for older ones.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:08:47 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right
> On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> > There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
> > need to change the version number.
> 
> > The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
> > to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
> > shouldn't have happened in the first place ...
> 
> There are now multiple copies of 7.3.6 out there.  How is a body to know which 
> one to use?  On RPMs, as you well now, SOP is to increment the release on any 
> change, including a typo.  This way there is no ambiguity.
> 
> This is not the first time tarballs have been streamlined.  I'm glad I hadn't 
> built any RPMs yet.

Sigh. I'm very uncomfortable with the existence of two versions of
7.3.6. Also the fact that I cannot get the "right" tar ball till it is
copied to mirrors makes me uncomfortable too.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:19:30 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right
Tom Lane wrote:

>Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> writes:
>  
>
>>Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible.  7.3.7 or 
>>7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper 
>>bag release (like 6.4.1 was).
>>    
>>
>
>There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real
>need to change the version number.
>
>The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs
>to automate his release wrapping process more.  These sorta mistakes
>shouldn't have happened in the first place ...
>
>			regards, tom lane
>  
>
How about in future, packaging it all up as a release candidate,
(ie. 7.4.2-rc1) for a week or so before official final release,
so package maintainers can build their scripts etc,
and small problems like this ironed out.
If anything needs to be corrected, it can be repackaged with a
bumped rc number until it is determined that everything is fine.
At which point the latest rc is renamed as the final release
(ie. 7.4.2).
Unless you already do this, and I've completely missed it somehow

-- 
Mark Gibson <gibsonm |AT| cromwell |DOT| co |DOT| uk>
Web Developer & Database Admin
Cromwell Tools Ltd.
Leicester, England.


Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:50:40 +0000
Mark Gibson <gibsonm@cromwell.co.uk>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right
On Friday 05 March 2004 09:50 am, Mark Gibson wrote:
> How about in future, packaging it all up as a release candidate,
> (ie. 7.4.2-rc1) for a week or so before official final release,

We do this already for major versions.  Maybe we should consider this for 
minors too.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:00:56 -0500
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right
On Thursday 04 March 2004 7:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> writes:
> > Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible. 
> > 7.3.7 or 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let
> > 7.3.6 be a brown paper bag release (like 6.4.1 was).
>
> There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no
> real need to change the version number.

I have to agree with Lamar et. al. The _code_ may not have changed but 
the "product" did and the version number should reflect that.

This issue was discussed in InfoWorld a couple years back. I don't 
recall reading a single comment from someone who felt this practice 
benefitted them but there were plenty of tales of pain an frustration 
caused by even seemingly small changes between versions.

Perhaps the fourth digit could represent non-code related updates such 
as documentation and packaging fixes.

Cheers,
Steve


Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:59:27 -0800
Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right
Steve Crawford wrote:
>>>Please, don't call it 7.3.6.  Streamlining releases is terrible. 
>>>7.3.7 or 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let
>>>7.3.6 be a brown paper bag release (like 6.4.1 was).
>>
>>There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no
>>real need to change the version number.
> 
> I have to agree with Lamar et. al. The _code_ may not have changed but 
> the "product" did and the version number should reflect that.

I second this. As someone has said, we should probably use the -rc 
mechanism in the future (changing the versioning from 7.3.6 into 7.3.6.1 
has a greater chance of breaking things). Allow at least one week before 
the final -rc turns into final. The last -rc will be byte-to-byte 
identical with the final, we just rename it. *If* the final turns out to 
contain some stupid mistake, we'll just have to make 7.3.7...

Once something is released, it should not change at all.

-- 
dave


Sat, 06 Mar 2004 12:26:03 +0700
David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com>
Re: Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right