MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+OCxoyGPVRQ+1tnxGuFS1JACr1QJUchS90qxXHuN_YTUNj8QA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKq0gvKgeckkBa0xm6xsrmNvk=Cm6zPP4n1O3CQCvDUvCYCs8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevEyONmEeqwU4VJgs8vTV3yW3dsNLPiFfPnAKJOCLgYbvYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKq0gvL-s4_Mk0ztGh+yywH5v4Jvnm2Fs2k-gq2wcrW+kfY2xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1341692590.1122.1.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org>
	<2476F91B-A1B2-45DA-96EB-8F33C79A0E05@openscg.com>
	<1341781012.3451.0.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org>
	<CA+OCxoxExqHx_ZNRpvmJpVoNCOa9yO4C3HTZ4Ob7e32Wn2+fcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevEzm09To=uzW=+F==G98HK2YZNXsXwv+NW-7uOgqGLOxoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxox1pCaXvOeVmv0gECbXsOqGeXQL-O2QsyWmFS9ZvCkjbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevEx_7-Xm+z5oc+61TuHzSbu34fWAKiRxAXjGwfCzff=OZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxoyGPVRQ+1tnxGuFS1JACr1QJUchS90qxXHuN_YTUNj8QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:49:21 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CABUevEwoXEvi6AqsF6+1RoOpT6BjPcAE=pKQ9TGLX0wrCV3X-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux Downloads page change
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Devrim_G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org>,
	Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com>,
	"pgsql-www@postgresql.org" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>>> That aside though, the code must be 100% open source to be listed on
>>>>> those download pages; Scottie, where can people find the spec files,
>>>>> BitRock XML files or whatever?
>>>>
>>>> While I agree with that requirement in general, we should apply it
>>>> fairly. AFAICT the latest release of the EDB installers that had
>>>> sourcecode with it was 9.0.2 - I have a hard time seeing that nothing
>>>> would've changed since... None of the changes that have been discussed
>>>> on the lists here in the past couple of months are anywhere to be
>>>> seen.. So should we remove the EDB installers from the page as well?
>>>
>>> The EDB installers are open source, and have been since they were
>>> first published. You can get the code for all branches from
>>> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=edb-installers.git;a=summary, and
>>> that includes not just the installer files, but the entire build
>>> framework. The most recent commit is to the 9.2 branch, from Friday.
>>
>> Attached is a screenshot showing what this page looked like when I
>> sent that email. So someone pushed all those changes *after* I sent
>> that email, in what looks like an attempt to dispute that statement.
>> While we don't have log extracts showing the exact times (should
>> probably fix that in the pggit code), there is certainly a push shown
>> around 9AM UTC this morning... (and it shows that between this push
>> and the previous *of any activity at all* on that repository, there
>> have been another 5189 operations on git.postgresql.org - around 3500
>> pushes, though that includes pushes from the mirror of the main
>> postgresql git repo, so it's a little bit inflated. but it pretty
>> clearly matches up to the "no activity in 18 months" that the web
>> interface showed)
>
> It gets pushed periodically when I remember to do it (or someone
> reminds me), which I guess you've forgotten given that we've had this
> exact same discussion before. Yes, I pushed it when you reminded me a
> moment ago - and this time remembered to also push the 9.2 branch
> which previously hadn't been pushed because it needs to be done
> explicitly the first time which I had forgotten to do in the past.
> That's where the vast majority of activity has been over recent
> months, except the last 3 weeks or so where there have been numerous
> bug fixes in the back branches as we've been updating the add-ons that
> are available through StackBuilder.

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.

So clearly there is something that doesn't work in this process.


>> I know they're *intended* to be opensource. But the normal status is
>> they're lagging behind a year or more, so I'm not sure I consider it
>> open... My experience shows that whenever I'm looking for something,
>> it's not up to date, and it's only pushed when I point it out. It may
>> well be that it's pushed at other times as wel of course - but you
>> can't really claim it's pushed regularly.
>
> No, I never have claimed it's pushed regularly. I've always said it's
> pushed when I remember or when someone reminds me. The point is that

In that case, can we get it done regularly, so it can actually be
considered open?


> it is pushed, and has been on more than one occasion since 9.0.2 was
> released - which should be obvious if you look towards the bottom of
> your screenshot.

Yeah. I guess you're just not bothering to tag releases anymore? that
confused me on that point.


>> And frankly, I'm a little offended by whomever made that push into the
>> repository to dispute my statement, without claiming responsibility
>> for doing so. To me, it's rather obvious it was done as a direct
>> response to my email. Given the perfect timing. Whoever did it.
>
> It was. You reminded me. As you've done in the past. I made no claim
> that I push that repo on any regular schedule - merely that I try to
> remember to keep it up to date, and the code is available under an
> open source licence.

Well, IMNSHO, just being available under an open source license *if
asked for*, should be well below where a reasonable bar would be put
for this.

But in treating people the same - I just asked Scottie to make sure
that they're not available just when asked for, but all the time. Can
you do the same?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/