From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Alpha releases: How to tag |
Date: | 2009-08-03 15:10:49 |
Message-ID: | 17094.1249312249@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... it doesn't scale to consider the possibility that we might
>> want to re-release an alpha after fixing some particularly evil bug.
> Yes, if that's what we want then definitely branch. I guess the branch
> will (almost) only ever have exactly one commit on it.
Yeah, I'd expect so; but it seems like a good idea to leave room for the
possibility of more than one commit. I was first thinking that we'd
just release a new alpha from CVS HEAD if the evil-bug situation comes
up. However, if we've already done a catversion bump or some other
incompatible change in HEAD, that wouldn't be very practical.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-08-03 15:13:57 | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-08-03 15:03:47 | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |