RE: [HACKERS] 6.6 release

From: Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] 6.6 release
Date: 1999-12-10 08:12:57
Message-ID: 1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478C70BF69@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I thought they were, but it's possible as I don't really know CVS that
well.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 8:11 AM
To: Peter Mount
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release

Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> writes:
> It looks like it may be an idea now, as for some reason, some parts of
> the 6.5.3 JDBC driver isn't in 6.5.3?
> We had a similar problem with 6.5.2, so before 6.5.3 was released, I
> checked CVS to make sure the changes were there, and they were.

They may be in the tip, but are they in the REL6_5_PATCHES branch?

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-12-10 08:18:55 Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-12-10 08:11:04 Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release