Agreed, I thought of that when Andrew sent the original ...
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 16:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander writes:
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit
On 10/02/2010 10:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 16:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander writes:
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit
message
Possibly Marc should adopt the habit of making t
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 16:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit
>> message
>
> Possibly Marc should adopt the habit of making the commit messages read
> like "Stamp 9
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> There are commit messages from about 22 hours ago that say that the
> This was intentional - to wait with the tags until the tarballs have
> been verified *and published*, so we don't end up having to move the
> tag
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> There are commit messages from about 22 hours ago that say that the
> upcoming releases have been tagged, but I don't see the corresponding tags
> when I list out the tags in my repo (and there has been a commit since
> then).
>
> I'm not sure
There are commit messages from about 22 hours ago that say that the
upcoming releases have been tagged, but I don't see the corresponding
tags when I list out the tags in my repo (and there has been a commit
since then).
I'm not sure where the release procedures are documented - I couldn't
f
