Subject: My SGML build fixed

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:34:49 -0500 (EST)

My 5-minute SGML build is now working again.  The URL's are at the
bottom of the developers page.

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

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:10:52 +0100

> bottom of the developers page.

Why do we need two builds anyway?

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:21:05 -0500 (EST)

> Why do we need two builds anyway?

Good question --- historically, the SGML build on postgresql.org  was
often broken, sometimes for months, and the build isn't frequent enough
for someone to commit an SGML change, then quickly view a new build to
see if errors were introduced.

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:48:09 +0100

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> often broken, sometimes for months, and the build isn't frequent
> enough for someone to commit an SGML change, then quickly view a new
> build to see if errors were introduced.

Wow, that must be ancient history.

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:02:49 +0100

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > My 5-minute SGML build is now working again.  The URL's are at
> > > the bottom of the developers page.
> >

All of this has obviously not been true for a long time, so I repeat my 
question.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:15:12 -0500 (EST)

> All of this has obviously not been true for a long time, so I repeat my 

How often does the postgresql.org site build the SGML files?  And just
last week the News build failed because it lost execution bits.  I still
don't trust dynamic content on postgresql.org to work reliably.

---

From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:21:06 +0100

>don't trust dynamic content on postgresql.org to work reliably.

It can work, you just need somebody who is willing to look after the
entire process and not just do it every once in a while.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7  9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://diary.in-nomine.org/
When I see beings of wicked nature, pressed by violent sin and affliction,
may I hold these rare ones dear as if I had found a precious treasure...

---

From: "Peter Eisentraut" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:03:52 +0100 (CET)

Bruce Momjian writes:
> How often does the postgresql.org site build the SGML files?

Whenever something changes.

> And just
> last week the News build failed because it lost execution bits.

Uh, so?  Your reasoning is that because some unrelated program on an
unrelated machine breaks, we should abandon all work on all programs on
machines in the the DNS domain?

> I still

Well, if something doesn't work, please help fixing it rather than
duplicating it.  Your build breaks just as often as anything else. 
(Remember last week.)  And I want to know when the postgresql.org build
was ever broken in the last two years.

Right now it just seems like a waste of resources and it confuses the
onlookers.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:15:23 -0500 (EST)

> Whenever something changes.

How often does the SGML check, or is it tied into CVS commit and happens
automatically?

> machines in the the DNS domain?

It means there is still too much instability in the running processes on
those machines, yea.

> was ever broken in the last two years.

It broke because the style sheet requirements changed, not because
something on my machine broke.  Yes, mine has broken in the past too,
but I don't see a problem with too builds.

> Right now it just seems like a waste of resources and it confuses the

OK, you still haven't told me how often the postgresql.org build runs. 
If it is frequent enough, we can remove my link and re-add it if
postgresql.org breaks again.

---

From: "Peter Eisentraut" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:22 +0100 (CET)

Bruce Momjian writes:
> How often does the SGML check,

5 minutes

> It means there is still too much instability in the running processes on

Oops, then we better hurry and get the CVS repository and the mailing
lists off these machines.

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:51:38 -0500

> Right now it just seems like a waste of resources and it confuses the

If Bruce is willing to expend the resources, what's the problem?
I kinda like having some redundancy in this service, myself.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:54 +0100

Tom Lane wrote:
> > Right now it just seems like a waste of resources and it confuses
> > the onlookers.
>

Bruce said he does it because postgresql.org is regularly broken.  To 
that I say, fix it.  If he says he does it out of joy, then I don't 
care.

However, maybe we should structure the developer website listing 
differently, such as

Development version of the documentation
* Mirror 0
* Mirror 1

so onlookers see that they are two more or less identical versions of 
the same service.

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:57:35 -0500

> so onlookers see that they are two more or less identical versions of 

That seems reasonable to me.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:58:15 -0500 (EST)

> lists off these machines.

2003 is not the year to be touting the reliability of our postgresql.org
servers --- previous years, yes, but not 2003.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:00:06 -0500 (EST)

> so onlookers see that they are two more or less identical versions of 

After too many emails, I now know that the official builds are now every
5 minutes, rather than every few hours which is what used to happen, so
I see my build isn't needed anymore.  If you want to list it as a
mirror, that is fine, or you can remove it completely and we can re-add
it in case it is needed later.

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:24:22 -0400 (AST)

> servers --- previous years, yes, but not 2003.

Nope, first half sucked the big one ... I'd be first to admit it ... but
second half has been infinitely better :)

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:03:42 -0500 (EST)

> second half has been infinitely better :)

Very true!  :-)

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:04:01 -0500 (EST)

OK, I have updated the developer's page to list my doc build as a
sub-bullet under the official build.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------