Re: stable snapshots...

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>> Not sure about the usefulness of the extra stable tarballs ... doesn't
>>>> most of the back patching happen just as we are about to release the new
>>>> versions?
>>
>>> Not sure where you got that idea. There are plenty of times when
>>> somebody (mostly Tom) commits a bugfix and tells the reporter, stating
>>> that the release date of the new version is some undetermined point in
>>> the future. Not everyone is able to grab the patch from CVS and apply
>>> it; my guess is that most people simply wait for the next stable
>>> release. Those people would benefit from having the older stable
>>> branches, so here's a +1 to Stefan's idea.
>>
>> Yeah. When we have fixed a bug but not yet released an official version
>> with the fix, somebody who needs that bug fix has three choices:
>> * manually apply the patch to a recent tarball;
>> * pull from CVS;
>> * use a nightly snapshot.
>> The first two cases require having extra tools like appropriate bison
>> and flex versions (which right now is looking like a bigger deal than
>> I would wish :-().
>
> actually nagios just noticed that we managed to break our own -HEAD snapshot
> generation with this change as well...
> I have now fixed that script(and installed a more modern flex on
> developer.postgresql.org) as well but I think we have some more work to do in
> order to improve the robustness of those scripts...

Ummmmm ... you didn't break things, did you? Specifically as far as old
builds are concerned?? There is a reason why we have an older flex on
that machine :( Have you tested the new one you installed against all the
other releases?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664