Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 05:26:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We do not keep around dead code in HEAD for historical reference
>> purposes. We have an SCM for that, and we should use it. The only
>> reason to keep this file would be if people were possibly still going to
>
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 05:26:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0 file from git altogether?
> >> It's quite useless if it's not going to get installed.
>
> > I left it for the poss
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0 file from git altogether?
>> It's quite useless if it's not going to get installed.
> I left it for the possible documentation value thereof.
We do not keep around dead code in
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Don't install hstore--1.0.sql any more.
>> Since the current version is 1.1, the 1.0 file isn't really needed. We do
>> need the 1.0--1.1 upgrade file, so people on 1.0 can upgrade.
>
> Shouldn't this commit have removed
On 23 February 2012 16:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Don't install hstore--1.0.sql any more.
>> Since the current version is 1.1, the 1.0 file isn't really needed. We do
>> need the 1.0--1.1 upgrade file, so people on 1.0 can upgrade.
>
> Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0
Robert Haas writes:
> Don't install hstore--1.0.sql any more.
> Since the current version is 1.1, the 1.0 file isn't really needed. We do
> need the 1.0--1.1 upgrade file, so people on 1.0 can upgrade.
Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0 file from git altogether?
It's quite useless if it'
