you're all wrong.  6.4 was late because of me.  i didn't know the postgresql
development process or political process, and that combined with some real
life issues made me unresponsive and/or unavailable when d'arcy needed me.
you all have my apologies, and i promise that i will do better next time.

Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:19:32 -0800
Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
6.4 lateness and CIDR

Ummm...why are we rehashing this?  Who/why is anyone tryign to assign
blame?  It happened...so?  Let's avoid it happening again, but I think we
are up to, what, 4 martyrs now? :)




On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Paul A Vixie wrote:

> you're all wrong.  6.4 was late because of me.  i didn't know the postgresql
> development process or political process, and that combined with some real
> life issues made me unresponsive and/or unavailable when d'arcy needed me.
> you all have my apologies, and i promise that i will do better next time.
> 

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:54:12 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 lateness and CIDR
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> Ummm...why are we rehashing this?  Who/why is anyone tryign to assign
> blame?  It happened...so?  Let's avoid it happening again, but I think we
> are up to, what, 4 martyrs now? :)

NO !!! NO !!! I AM NOT AGREE !!! THEY MUST BE BAAAaaaDLY PUNISHED !!!

:-)

As a punishment they have to solve that damn problem of missing -lcrypt
in libpgtcl Makefile on RedHat Linux 5.x i386 !!!

I didn't count the number of messages that I received from PgAccess
users claiming that PgAccess + libpgtcl does not recognize the crypt
library! I even made a crypt.txt file that I am attaching to all my
messages regarding this problem :-)

-- 
Constantin Teodorescu
FLEX Consulting Braila, ROMANIA

Fri, 08 Jan 1999 20:15:45 +0200
Constantin Teodorescu <teo@flex.ro>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 lateness and CIDR
> 
> Ummm...why are we rehashing this?  Who/why is anyone tryign to assign
> blame?  It happened...so?  Let's avoid it happening again, but I think we
> are up to, what, 4 martyrs now? :)

We are all falling on our swords.  Better than everyone blaming everyone
else.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:12:52 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 lateness and CIDR
> Ummm...why are we rehashing this?  Who/why is anyone tryign to assign
> blame?  It happened...so?  Let's avoid it happening again, but I think 
> we are up to, what, 4 martyrs now? :)

Yeah, we're all goin' down before this is over :)

I'm not sure how this came up again (besides Bruce wading through 3
month old mail) but this is all old news. Next release won't be the
same, and in hindsight *every* release could be done better.

                   - Tom

Sat, 09 Jan 1999 02:41:04 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 lateness and CIDR
On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

> > Ummm...why are we rehashing this?  Who/why is anyone tryign to assign
> > blame?  It happened...so?  Let's avoid it happening again, but I think 
> > we are up to, what, 4 martyrs now? :)
> 
> Yeah, we're all goin' down before this is over :)
> 
> I'm not sure how this came up again (besides Bruce wading through 3
> month old mail) but this is all old news. Next release won't be the
> same, and in hindsight *every* release could be done better.

That was kinda the way I was thinking of it, which is why I was sooooo
confused that we were having to many ppl volunteering to 'fall upon their
trusty swords' :)

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Fri, 8 Jan 1999 23:12:49 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 lateness and CIDR

On 09-Jan-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> 
>> > Ummm...why are we rehashing this?  Who/why is anyone tryign to assign
>> > blame?  It happened...so?  Let's avoid it happening again, but I think 
>> > we are up to, what, 4 martyrs now? :)
>> 
>> Yeah, we're all goin' down before this is over :)
>> 
>> I'm not sure how this came up again (besides Bruce wading through 3
>> month old mail) but this is all old news. Next release won't be the
>> same, and in hindsight *every* release could be done better.
> 
> That was kinda the way I was thinking of it, which is why I was sooooo
> confused that we were having to many ppl volunteering to 'fall upon their
> trusty swords' :)

If it's any consolation, Marc, I was considering nominating you  :)

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH   email: vev@michvhf.com   flame-mail: /dev/null
       # include <std/disclaimers.h>                   TEAM-OS2
   Online Searchable Campground Listings    http://www.camping-usa.com
       "There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
               than the federal government"  -- Tony Snow
==========================================================================



Fri, 08 Jan 1999 22:37:02 -0500 (EST)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 lateness and CIDR
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> 
> On 09-Jan-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > 
> >> > Ummm...why are we rehashing this?  Who/why is anyone tryign to assign
> >> > blame?  It happened...so?  Let's avoid it happening again, but I think 
> >> > we are up to, what, 4 martyrs now? :)
> >> 
> >> Yeah, we're all goin' down before this is over :)
> >> 
> >> I'm not sure how this came up again (besides Bruce wading through 3
> >> month old mail) but this is all old news. Next release won't be the
> >> same, and in hindsight *every* release could be done better.
> > 
> > That was kinda the way I was thinking of it, which is why I was sooooo
> > confused that we were having to many ppl volunteering to 'fall upon their
> > trusty swords' :)
> 
> If it's any consolation, Marc, I was considering nominating you  :)

	D'oh!

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:29:13 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 lateness and CIDR
I was wondering if any one is responsible for making 
the RPM for postgresql?  "rpm" could be added as a 
make target and the sources required to build the
rpm could be added to the CVS repository.  In this
way those people who only want binaries could be
better supported. 

I don't have a ton of time, but I could do it if
there arn't any other heads available. I'm currently
working on SGML integration and would rather spend
my time there... 

Clark

Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:05:43 +0000
Clark Evans <clark.evans@manhattanproject.com>
RPM maintainer?
> I was wondering if any one is responsible for making
> the RPM for postgresql?  "rpm" could be added as a
> make target and the sources required to build the
> rpm could be added to the CVS repository.  In this
> way those people who only want binaries could be
> better supported.

That would be great. The RedHat folks are swamped with maintaining
*lots* of packages, and I'm sure it would help if we could do the
maintenance of the rpm for them.

Nobody else has stepped forward for that yet, though it has been a need
for a while. You're welcome to it ;)

Perhaps once the rpm build is codified, it would be easier for others to
help. I've got the rpm book, but have not waded through enough to figure
out how to build a from-scratch installation.

                     - Tom

Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:04:15 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] RPM maintainer?
   That would be great. The RedHat folks are swamped with maintaining
   *lots* of packages, and I'm sure it would help if we could do the
   maintenance of the rpm for them.

Does this mean that we should consider maintaining other packaging
systems, e.g., the pkg systems used by FreeBSD/NetBSD/... ?  I have no
idea if there is interest among the "normal" maintainers of those
things, but I suspect that like all of us they have too many things
going on also.

Cheers,
Brook

Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:20:15 -0700 (MST)
Brook Milligan <brook@trillium.NMSU.Edu>
Re: [HACKERS] RPM maintainer?
> Does this mean that we should consider maintaining other packaging
> systems, e.g., the pkg systems used by FreeBSD/NetBSD/... ?  I have no
> idea if there is interest among the "normal" maintainers of those
> things, but I suspect that like all of us they have too many things
> going on also.

I'm not certain about all of them, but for example someone (Oliver?)
maintains a Debian package for Postgres. Distribution packages are
always a good idea and helpful to some folks.

We have no normal maintainers in my experience. However, anyone
interested in maintaining packages would be welcome to join us as
another abnormal maintainer :)

                   - Tom

Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:42:56 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] RPM maintainer?