On Nov 26, 2012 7:15 AM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Hari Babu <haribabu.ko...@huawei.com> writes: > > When I was trying get the source code from ftp source, I found that > > 9.2.0beta1 and 9.2beta1 are pointing to > > 9.2.0beta1 source code. Is it intentional or Is there any source code > > difference between 9.2.0beta1 and 9.2beta1? > > We do not use version strings like "9.2.0beta1". Not sure where you > found that. "9.2beta1" was the version string for that beta release, > and then "9.2.0" was the first official release in the 9.2 series. > > In bygone days this sort of thing was somewhat dependent on the whims > of whoever packaged a particular release tarball; but for the last few > years we've used src/tools/version_stamp.pl, which is intentionally > quite anal-retentive about what spellings it will allow. >
There was a mistake in naming the directories for 9.2,and therefore a symlink was created so that both the incorrect and the correct name could be used. /Magnus
