<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [postgis-devel] autobuild cleanup</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5626" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText61156 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Stable and bad commit, aren't those oxymorons? Would we ever do such a thing? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>1.3.4 seems pretty stable to me. But then I guess we should distinguish between stable branch vs. stable release.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Yes having a postgis-1.3.4.tar.gz I think would be welcome if it is not too much trouble. I think we commit to it much less often that its unlikely to become unstable. Although I suppose there should be a note somewhere saying its not a stable released version (just a stable branch).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>What about the SVN install section being broken (it points to 1.4, but I guess people can figure that out), so I'm not too bothered about that if no one else is.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Regina</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> postgis-devel-bounces@postgis.refractions.net on behalf of Kevin Neufeld<BR><B>Sent:</B> Fri 9/12/2008 2:20 PM<BR><B>To:</B> PostGIS Development Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [postgis-devel] autobuild cleanup<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Ok, fair enough.<BR><BR>This implies that I should add a postgis-1.3.4.tar.gz to the download<BR>site that gets updated regularly along with the html and pdf<BR>documentation, right? In this way, the download urls in Chapter 2.2<BR>will match the PostGIS download site.<BR><BR>Is the 1.3.4 branch then still considered to be the last "stable"<BR>release even though it may break from a bad commit? Perhaps the website<BR>should be expanded to have:<BR><BR>Last stable release<BR> [html | pdf]<BR>Current release branch<BR> [html | pdf]<BR>Current SVN head<BR> [html | pdf]<BR>Portugues Documentation<BR>PostGIS Wiki<BR><BR>Maybe that's too much, I don't know.<BR><BR>-- Kevin<BR><BR><BR>Paul Ramsey wrote:<BR>> I actually like building off the stable branch rather than tags,<BR>> because documentation fixes are relevant right away. If someone finds<BR>> a syntax error in an example, it is nice to roll that out immediately,<BR>> rather than have that fix be invisible until the next point release.<BR>> The only "downside" is the version number not perfectly matching,<BR>> which I've been able to live with.<BR>><BR>> P.<BR>><BR>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Neufeld<BR>> <kneufeld@refractions.net> wrote:<BR>>> Just so I'm clear on a few things...<BR>>><BR>>> 1. The PostGIS documentation website<BR>>> (<A href="http://postgis.refractions.net/documentation">http://postgis.refractions.net/documentation</A>) has a link to the 1.3 version<BR>>> documentation. This is actually built from the 1.3 branch (currently<BR>>> 1.3.4), NOT the last stable tagged release 1.3.3. Is this really what we<BR>>> want? The Downloads section does not have a link to postgis-1.3.4.tar.gz,<BR>>> only the latest stable tagged releases. This is noticeable if you look at<BR>>> the 1.3 manual (<A href="http://postgis.refractions.net/documentation/manual-1.3/">http://postgis.refractions.net/documentation/manual-1.3/</A>),<BR>>> the download link in section 2.2 is broken. I don't think we should be<BR>>> referencing non-tagged versions (except svn trunk of course) ... but that's<BR>>> just my two cents.<BR>>><BR>>> 2. If the issue in #1 is fixed to reference the last stable release, then<BR>>> the autobuild for 1.3 can simply be to checkout and build the code and email<BR>>> parties responsible for breaking it. I can remove the 1.3 documentation<BR>>> update and code tarballing for postgis-1.3.4.<BR>>><BR>>> 3. Once the above is resolved, the generated PDF doc should be the same<BR>>> version as the html.<BR>>><BR>>> Thoughts?<BR>>> -- Kevin<BR>>> _______________________________________________<BR>>> postgis-devel mailing list<BR>>> postgis-devel@postgis.refractions.net<BR>>> <A href="http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel">http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel</A><BR>>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> postgis-devel mailing list<BR>> postgis-devel@postgis.refractions.net<BR>> <A href="http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel">http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>postgis-devel mailing list<BR>postgis-devel@postgis.refractions.net<BR><A href="http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel">http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
<HTML><BODY><P><hr size=1></P>
<P><STRONG>
The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
</STRONG></P></BODY></HTML>
<P><hr size=1></P>
<P><STRONG><font size="2" color="339900"> Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing this email and join us in saving paper. </p> <p> </font></STRONG></P>