Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Actually, branch in one to two weeks has been the status quo almost since
day one ... not that I'm against branch on release, I'm only saying that
we've followed this same procedure on branching since ... forever.
That is incorrect. See earlier in this thread.
--
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:36:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes
more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely
don't expect that much drift in the next week
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:57:16AM +, Dave Page wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 9:00 AM, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume this vote was taken out on -core? I don't mind -core deciding on
this, not at all, but I would appreciate it if you would post the result of
the vote on
On Feb 5, 2008 9:00 AM, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume this vote was taken out on -core? I don't mind -core deciding on
this, not at all, but I would appreciate it if you would post the result of
the vote on -hackers.
It wasn't a 'vote' in the formal sense. It was just a
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes
more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely
don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when
there has been
Gregory Stark wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
With the branch delayed they will have to say Oh, there's a new
release. I wonder when they will branch so I can start building the new
branch.
No, I wrote that, not Tom. Your snipping went
On Feb 5, 2008 11:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This probably wasn't on the core team's horizon - IIRC Dave is the only
member of core who runs a buildfarm member.
To be honest the zoo beside me didn't even cross my mind when that
thread happened. I didn't pay much attention
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:00:29 +0100 Magnus Hagander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:36:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
To avoid double-patching effort. I think we'll branch fairly shortly,
like in a week or so, but right now it'd mostly just create make-work
for committers.
Was that a big problem last release?
Well, basically this happens at core's
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I don't see the branch point for REL8_3_STABLE - has that been done? I
thought it would happen at the same time as we tagged the release.
No, we will branch later.
Tom Lane wrote:
As best I recall, the immediate branch after 8.2 was the exception not
the rule --- we've usually waited longer than that.
8.2, 8.1, and 8.0 were branched off the x.y.0 release tag. 7.4 was branched
at rc1, 7.3 was branched at beta4, 7.2 was branched at final release, 7.1 was
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
As best I recall, the immediate branch after 8.2 was the exception not
the rule --- we've usually waited longer than that.
8.2, 8.1, and 8.0 were branched off the x.y.0 release tag. 7.4 was branched
at rc1, 7.3 was branched at beta4, 7.2 was
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes
more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely
don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when
there has been no code drift is
13 matches
Mail list logo
