On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Unless generating the splits requires a non-trivial amount of work, I
see no reason not to have them.
its all automated ... still wish I could figure out a way of splitting off
*just* libppq, since that would drop downloads of the full package
significantl
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:27:03PM +0100, Ernst Herzberg wrote:
> On Thursday 24 February 2005 21:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > pub/source/v.8.0.1/
> > > postgresql-8.0.1.tar.bz2
> > > postgresql-8.0.1.tar.bz2.md5
> > > postgresql-8.0.1.tar.gz
>
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Also: I notice that the README file that's supposed to tell people about
the split-tarball scheme is not present in any of the recent-version
subdirectories, so it's no wonder th
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Frankly, I'd suggest dropping the splits. Thoughts?
I also found the split sources + a non-split sources version to be
confusing. As you, I think that splitting should be dropped.
Perhaps the confusion issue could be addressed by keeping the split
source
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also: I notice that the README file that's supposed to tell people about
>> the split-tarball scheme is not present in any of the recent-version
>> subdirectories, so it's no wonder that they are confused.
> A
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John DeSoi
> Sent: 24 February 2005 19:20
> To: Magnus Hagander
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Some download statistics
>
>
Frankly, I'd suggest dropping the splits. Thoughts?
>>
>>> I also found the split sources + a non-split sources version to be
>>> confusing. As you, I think that splitting should be dropped.
>>
>> Perhaps the confusion issue could be addressed by keeping the split
>> sources in a separate subd
On Thursday 24 February 2005 21:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
[...]
> >
> > pub/source/v.8.0.1/
> > postgresql-8.0.1.tar.bz2
> > postgresql-8.0.1.tar.bz2.md5
> > postgresql-8.0.1.tar.gz
> > postgresql-8.0.1.tar.gz.md5
> > split-tarba
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Troels Arvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:35:57 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Frankly, I'd suggest dropping the splits. Thoughts?
I also found the split sources + a non-split sources version to be
confusing. As you, I think that splitting
Troels Arvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:35:57 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Frankly, I'd suggest dropping the splits. Thoughts?
> I also found the split sources + a non-split sources version to be
> confusing. As you, I think that splitting should be dropped.
Perhaps
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:35:57 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I know several people who downloaded source *plus* the split ones,
> because "hey, I need postgresql. And I certainly need base too. And I
> need docs.". They don't realise it's included in the main tarball.
> Frankly, I'd suggest droppi
Hi Magnus,
On Feb 24, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I did some simple pivoting in Excel and split it into categories win32,
source, sig (MD5 or PGP signatures), RPMs, split (the split tarballs),
pgadmin and ODBC. Other stuff was so little that I cut it.
Assuming this is from a HTTP log
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:
3) There doesnt' seem to be much point to the distribution splits. A
total of less than 5% the *number* of downloads. And most people
probably get more than one file, so in reality that number shuold
proably be divided by 4 or 5.
I know several people who
13 matches
Mail list logo
