On tor, 2012-06-21 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I don't recall the reason why using 9.2.0betax was actually wrong - i
> realize that's not the name of the version, so thereby the directory
> was wrong. But in what way would it be wrong to call the version that?
It's not the beta for 9.
On tor, 2012-06-21 at 16:19 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Dickson S. Guedes
> wrote:
> > 2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander :
> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
> >>> wrote:
> (I do
2012/6/21 Magnus Hagander :
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Dickson S. Guedes
> wrote:
>> 2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander :
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
> 2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander :
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
>>> wrote:
(I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is
*better*, because then
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On ons, 2012-06-20 at 13:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we
>>> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual
>>> release a
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On ons, 2012-06-20 at 13:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we
>> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual
>> release as 9.2.0...
> The final release was always going to be c
On ons, 2012-06-20 at 13:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
> > wrote:
> >> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is
> >> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely no
2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander :
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>>> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is
>>> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much
>>> better to be inc
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is
>> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much
>> better to be inconsistent with previous versions)
>
>
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is
> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much
> better to be inconsistent with previous versions)
Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> The recent 9.2 beta releases have used a slightly different numbering
> scheme than all previous releases.
>
> It used to be that tarballs for version $VER were always available at:
> http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/source/v$VER
Hi list,
The recent 9.2 beta releases have used a slightly different numbering
scheme than all previous releases.
It used to be that tarballs for version $VER were always available at:
http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/source/v$VER/postgresql-$VER.tar.bz2
However, the new releases now use "v9.2.0b
12 matches
Mail list logo
