> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 01:10
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Dan Langille; Peter Eisentraut; Greg Copeland; Bruce
> Momjian; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] v7.3.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Well, a tag makes it feasible for someone else to recreate the tarball,
> given access to the CVS server. Dunno how important that is in the real
> world --- but I have seen requests before for us to tag release points.
>
> Any other arguments out
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 06:41, Dan Langille wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I never considered tag'ng for minor releases as having any importance,
> > > since the tarball's themselves provide the 'tag' ... branches give us the
>
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I never considered tag'ng for minor releases as having any importance,
> > since the tarball's themselves provide the 'tag' ... branches give us the
> > ability to back-patch, but tag's don't provide us anythi
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I never considered tag'ng for minor releases as having any importance,
> since the tarball's themselves provide the 'tag' ... branches give us the
> ability to back-patch, but tag's don't provide us anything ... do they?
Well, a tag makes it feasibl
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 21:04:32 -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
>>
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
> >> this project. Don't expect it to improve.
>
> > It was I who suggested that a release tea
msg resent because I incorrectly copied/pasted some addresses. Sorry.
On 4 Jan 2003 at 11:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases
> >> in this project.
msg resent because I incorrectly copied/pasted some addresses.
Sorry.
On 4 Jan 2003 at 11:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases
> >> in this project.
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 04:27, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Greg Copeland writes:
>
> > Just a reminder, there still doesn't appear to be a 7.3.1 tag.
>
> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
> this project. Don't expect it to improve.
Well, I thought I remembered f
Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
>> this project. Don't expect it to improve.
> It was I who suggested that a release team would be a good idea.
We *have* a release tea
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Greg Copeland writes:
>
> > Just a reminder, there still doesn't appear to be a 7.3.1 tag.
>
> There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
> this project. Don't expect it to improve.
It was I who suggested that a release te
Greg Copeland writes:
> Just a reminder, there still doesn't appear to be a 7.3.1 tag.
There is a long tradition of systematically failing to tag releases in
this project. Don't expect it to improve.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
Just a reminder, there still doesn't appear to be a 7.3.1 tag.
This is from the "HISTORY" file.
symbolic names:
REL7_3_STABLE: 1.182.0.2
REL7_2_3: 1.153.2.8
REL7_2_STABLE: 1.153.0.2
REL7_2: 1.153
Notice 7.3 stable but nothing about 7.3.x! I also see a 7.2.3, etc
On Sunday 22 December 2002 14:12, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Last night, we packaged up v7.3.1 of PostgreSQL, our latest stable
> release.
RPMs are available for RedHat8 + tcl8.4.1 at
ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/binary/v7.3.1/RPMS (once mirrors propagate it
will be at the mirrors)
Yes, Red Hat
Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 13:12, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Last night, we packaged up v7.3.1 of PostgreSQL, our latest stable
> > release.
> >
> > Purely meant to be a bug fix release, this one does have one major change,
> > in that the major number of the libpq library was i
On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 13:12, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Last night, we packaged up v7.3.1 of PostgreSQL, our latest stable
> release.
>
> Purely meant to be a bug fix release, this one does have one major change,
> in that the major number of the libpq library was increased, which means
> that ever
Last night, we packaged up v7.3.1 of PostgreSQL, our latest stable
release.
Purely meant to be a bug fix release, this one does have one major change,
in that the major number of the libpq library was increased, which means
that everyone is encouraged to recompile their clients along with this
up
18 matches
Mail list logo
