On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:50:20AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> What about 9.0?
Will come in a few minutes. I didn't have a checked out version of the 9.0
branch handy in my development environment. Regression test is currently
running.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 02:50:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Better a memory leak than broken ecpg ;-). Nobody except Michael
>> is terribly comfortable with that code, so we'd all rather wait for
>> him to review and apply the patch.
>
>
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 02:50:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Better a memory leak than broken ecpg ;-). Nobody except Michael
> is terribly comfortable with that code, so we'd all rather wait for
> him to review and apply the patch.
This patch was small enough that I felt good about it without hav
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> According to the decision at the developer meeting, the migration to
>> git should happen 17-20 Aug. Here's my proposed timeline. This will
>> obviously affect development work some, and since the original
>> timeline c
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > According to the decision at the developer meeting, the migration to
> > git should happen 17-20 Aug. Here's my proposed timeline. This will
> > obviously affect development work some, and since the original
> > timeline called for us having already re
Magnus Hagander writes:
> According to the decision at the developer meeting, the migration to
> git should happen 17-20 Aug. Here's my proposed timeline. This will
> obviously affect development work some, and since the original
> timeline called for us having already released 9.0 buy then ;)
>
Robert Haas writes:
> That sounds good, except for the part about nobody doing anything
> about the 9.0 open issues. Those issues are:
> * Backup procedure is wrong? - Nobody's been able to clearly
> articulate what the problem is, and according to Fujii Masao it's been
> this way since 8.2.
Ju
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Nobody responded when I asked about this recently, but shouldn't
> that list include "BUG #5607: memmory leak in ecpg"? We have a
> patch from Zoltán Böszörményi from before this bug report which
> seems to address the issue and which Michael Meskes said "Feel free
> to
Robert Haas wrote:
> That sounds good, except for the part about nobody doing anything
> about the 9.0 open issues. Those issues are:
>
> [four issues listed]
Nobody responded when I asked about this recently, but shouldn't
that list include "BUG #5607: memmory leak in ecpg"? We have a
patc
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> According to the decision at the developer meeting, the migration to
>>> git should happen 17-20 Aug. Here's my proposed timeline. This will
>>> obviously affect development work some, and since the origina
I wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> According to the decision at the developer meeting, the migration to
>> git should happen 17-20 Aug. Here's my proposed timeline. This will
>> obviously affect development work some, and since the original
>> timeline called for us having already released 9.0
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 16:19 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 16:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander writes:
> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I can see the point of wanting to be dead certain the repository isn't
> >>> changing under you during
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 16:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I can see the point of wanting to be dead certain the repository isn't
>>> changing under you during the data migration. Perhaps we need an agreed
>>> window between la
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I can see the point of wanting to be dead certain the repository isn't
>>> changing under you during the data migration. Perhaps we need an agreed
>>> window between
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. Tuesday evening, around 19:00 central european time, which is 17:00
>> GMT or 12:00 EST, I will freeze the current cvs repository. I will do
>> this by disabling committer login on that box, so please note that
>> this will also make it imposs
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can see the point of wanting to be dead certain the repository isn't
>> changing under you during the data migration. Perhaps we need an agreed
>> window between last call for commits and the actual lock-out.
> To pre
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> According to the decision at the developer meeting, the migration to
>> git should happen 17-20 Aug. Here's my proposed timeline. This will
>> obviously affect development work some, and since the original
>> timeline cal
* Tom Lane [100816 09:58]:
> That's not really going to do, especially since it will also lock out
> "cvs log". I certainly want to do a final update and cvs2cl after the
> last commits have happened, and I imagine other people will want that
> too. If there were a way to make the repository r
Magnus Hagander writes:
> According to the decision at the developer meeting, the migration to
> git should happen 17-20 Aug. Here's my proposed timeline. This will
> obviously affect development work some, and since the original
> timeline called for us having already released 9.0 buy then ;)
Co
Hi!
According to the decision at the developer meeting, the migration to
git should happen 17-20 Aug. Here's my proposed timeline. This will
obviously affect development work some, and since the original
timeline called for us having already released 9.0 buy then ;)
1. Tuesday evening, around 19:
20 matches
Mail list logo
