| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] configure: add git describe output to PG_VERSION when building a git tree |
| Date: | 2013-11-05 15:39:49 |
| Message-ID: | 17877.1383665989@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> So basically, this
>> would only be useful to people building production servers from random git
>> pulls from development or release-branch mainline. How many people really
>> do that, and should we inconvenience everybody else to benefit them?
> Not many do it today because we actively discourage it by requiring
> patches to be posted to the mailing list and the number of people
> writing PG patches is relatively small. Even so though, I can see folks
> like certain PG-on-cloud providers, who are doing testing, or even
> deployments, with various patches to provide us feedback on them, and
> therefore have to manage a bunch of different binaries, might find it
> useful.
I can see that there might be a use for tagging multiple binaries,
I just don't believe that this is a particularly helpful way to do it.
The last-commit tag is neither exactly the right data nor even a little
bit user-friendly. What about, say, a configure option to add a
user-specified string to the version() result?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-11-05 15:45:10 | Re: [PATCH] configure: add git describe output to PG_VERSION when building a git tree |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-11-05 15:32:25 | Re: [PATCH] configure: add git describe output to PG_VERSION when building a git tree |