Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Monday, 9. June 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> >> So while tagging the upcoming releases, I got annoyed once again about
> >> what a tedious, error-prone bit of donkeywork it is.
>
> > Could you explain what the problem is? Your scri
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Monday, 9. June 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> So while tagging the upcoming releases, I got annoyed once again about
>> what a tedious, error-prone bit of donkeywork it is.
> Could you explain what the problem is? Your script sounds like an ad hoc
>
Am Monday, 9. June 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> So while tagging the upcoming releases, I got annoyed once again about
> what a tedious, error-prone bit of donkeywork it is.
Could you explain what the problem is? Your script sounds like an ad hoc
workaround for some problem, but I haven't seen the p
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What I was thinking was just to have the script
>> print out something like
>>
>> Tagged tree as 8.3.4
>> Don't forget to run autoconf 2.59 before committing
> I like that one ...
I've checked in a script to do this --- executin
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm tempted to suggest letting the script invoke autoconf, too,
but that would require standardizing where to find the correct
version of autoconf for each branch; so it might not be such a
great idea.
Unfortunately that's true. Maybe we could agree on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Sunday, June 08, 2008 21:27:03 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm tempted to suggest letting the script invoke autoconf, too,
>>> but that would require standardiz
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm tempted to suggest letting the script invoke autoconf, too,
>> but that would require standardizing where to find the correct
>> version of autoconf for each branch; so it might not be such a
>> great idea.
> Unfortunately that'
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm tempted to suggest letting the script invoke autoconf, too,
but that would require standardizing where to find the correct
version of autoconf for each branch; so it might not be such a
great idea.
Unfortunately that's true. Maybe we could agree on using an alias
So while tagging the upcoming releases, I got annoyed once again about
what a tedious, error-prone bit of donkeywork it is. You've got to find
and update the sub-version numbers, and *not* any chance occurrence of
the same strings (eg s/20/21/g for version 7.4.21 would've mangled some
copyright da
