> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 01:10
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Dan Langille; Peter Eisentraut; Greg Copeland; Bruce
> Momjian; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] v7.3.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Well, a tag makes it feasible for someone else to recreate the tarball,
> given access to the CVS server. Dunno how important that is in the real
> world --- but I have seen requests before for us to tag release points.
>
> Any other arguments out
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 06:41, Dan Langille wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I never considered tag'ng for minor releases as having any importance,
> > > since the tarball's themselves provide the 'tag' ... branches give us the
>
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I never considered tag'ng for minor releases as having any importance,
> > since the tarball's themselves provide the 'tag' ... branches give us the
> > ability to back-patch, but tag's don't provide us anythi
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I never considered tag'ng for minor releases as having any importance,
> since the tarball's themselves provide the 'tag' ... branches give us the
> ability to back-patch, but tag's don't provide us anything ... do they?
Well, a tag makes it feasibl
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 21:04:32 -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
>>
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
> >> this project. Don't expect it to improve.
>
> > It was I who suggested that a release tea
msg resent because I incorrectly copied/pasted some addresses. Sorry.
On 4 Jan 2003 at 11:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases
> >> in this project.
msg resent because I incorrectly copied/pasted some addresses.
Sorry.
On 4 Jan 2003 at 11:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases
> >> in this project.
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 04:27, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Greg Copeland writes:
>
> > Just a reminder, there still doesn't appear to be a 7.3.1 tag.
>
> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
> this project. Don't expect it to improve.
Well, I thought I remembered f
Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
>> this project. Don't expect it to improve.
> It was I who suggested that a release team would be a good idea.
We *have* a release tea
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Greg Copeland writes:
>
> > Just a reminder, there still doesn't appear to be a 7.3.1 tag.
>
> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
> this project. Don't expect it to improve.
It was I who suggested that a release te
Greg Copeland writes:
> Just a reminder, there still doesn't appear to be a 7.3.1 tag.
There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
this project. Don't expect it to improve.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
Just a reminder, there still doesn't appear to be a 7.3.1 tag.
This is from the "HISTORY" file.
symbolic names:
REL7_3_STABLE: 1.182.0.2
REL7_2_3: 1.153.2.8
REL7_2_STABLE: 1.153.0.2
REL7_2: 1.153
Notice 7.3 stable but nothing about 7.3.x! I also see a 7.2.3, etc
Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 13:12, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Last night, we packaged up v7.3.1 of PostgreSQL, our latest stable
> > release.
> >
> > Purely meant to be a bug fix release, this one does have one major change,
> > in that the major number of the libpq library was i
15 matches
Mail list logo
