Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-06-10 Thread Tom Lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into > /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed > something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so > it started clean), I'll move those

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-05 Thread David Garamond
Steve Crawford wrote: Please, don't call it 7.3.6. Streamlining releases is terrible. 7.3.7 or 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper bag release (like 6.4.1 was). There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real need to change the version

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-05 Thread Steve Crawford
On Thursday 04 March 2004 7:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Please, don't call it 7.3.6. Streamlining releases is terrible. > > 7.3.7 or 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let > > 7.3.6 be a brown paper bag release (like 6.4.1 was). > > There were

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-05 Thread Lamar Owen
On Friday 05 March 2004 09:50 am, Mark Gibson wrote: > How about in future, packaging it all up as a release candidate, > (ie. 7.4.2-rc1) for a week or so before official final release, We do this already for major versions. Maybe we should consider this for minors too. -- Lamar Owen Director o

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-05 Thread Mark Gibson
Tom Lane wrote: Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Please, don't call it 7.3.6. Streamlining releases is terrible. 7.3.7 or 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper bag release (like 6.4.1 was). There were no code-change differences in this rewrap,

[HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Tom Lane
It looks to me like there are now *two* copies of the built manpages in the 7.3.6 tarball, as well as some extraneous .md5 files: Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man-7.3.tar.gz Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: man.tar.gz Only in postgresql-7.3.6/doc: postgres.tar.gz Only in postgresql-7.3.6: postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > > There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real > > need to change the version number. > > > The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs > > to automate his release wrapping process more. T

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > > There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real > > need to change the version number. > > > The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs > > to automate his release wrappin

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Lamar Owen
On Thursday 04 March 2004 10:28 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real > need to change the version number. > The lesson I'd prefer to see us take away from this is that Marc needs > to automate his release wrapping process more. These sorta m

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Tom Lane
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please, don't call it 7.3.6. Streamlining releases is terrible. 7.3.7 or > 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let 7.3.6 be a brown paper > bag release (like 6.4.1 was). There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no real

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Lamar Owen
On Thursday 04 March 2004 07:45 pm, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into > /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed > something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so > it started clean), I'

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Marc G. Fournier
'k, replaced with the good ones ... On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good: > > It looks good to me too, at least the main tar.gz seems correct. > > regards,

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Tom Lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good: It looks good to me too, at least the main tar.gz seems correct. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Marc G. Fournier
don't know what happen with that last one, but this one looks good: svr1# tar tvzpf postgresql-7.3.6.tar.gz | grep postgres.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- pgsql/wheel 954585 Mar 4 21:33 2004 postgresql-7.3.6/doc/postgres.tar.gz svr1# tar tvypf postgresql-7.3.6.tar.bz2 | grep postgres.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- pgsql

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Marc G. Fournier
k, trying again and trapping all the configure/make output, but other then putting the files in the _1 directory, the script i the same ... On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into > > /

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, 7.3.6 rewrap not right

2004-03-04 Thread Marc G. Fournier
Okay, I've repackaged it, and temporarily put everything into /pub/source/v7.3.6_1 ... if ppl can confirm that I haven't somehow missed something again (I rm -rf'd the old build tree and re-cvs exported it, so it started clean), I'll move those files over to 7.3.6 ... On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tom Lan