Greg Stark <> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane <> wrote:
>> I thought we'd pretty much done that cleanup during the cvs->git
>> conversion?

> I guess I'm talking about tags. I'm not clear on the distinction
> between tags and branches names in git.

> Prior to 8.0.0 we seem to have tagged the first release with a tag
> that doesn't include _0 for the minor release and afterwards with one
> that does:

> REL2_0
> REL6_1
> REL6_2
> REL6_4
> REL7_0
> REL7_1
> REL7_2
> REL7_3
> REL7_4
> REL8_0_0
> REL8_1_0

Ah.  Well, that's a reflection of what those releases were actually
called at the time: we did not start using ".0" on major releases
until the 8.0 branch.  Compare tarball names in

So we could go back and add tags like REL7_4_0 but it would be historical
revisionism.  Is there a particular reason to do it?  It seems like stuff
that far back is only of historical interest, so I'm kind of -1 on
corrupting the historical record with retroactive labels.

BTW, there are some missing tags back there, for instance no REL7_0_1.
I believe this is because we couldn't exactly identify which commit
corresponded to the published tarballs.  I'd be for filling in those gaps
if anyone can figure it out.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to