Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 https://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/v7.4/ https://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/v8.0/ 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
