| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Matt Miller <pgsql(at)mattmillersf(dot)fastmail(dot)fm>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |
| Date: | 2006-12-18 20:00:50 |
| Message-ID: | 27915.1166472050@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Matt Miller wrote:
>> However, the patch will not apply to cvs branch REL8_2_0. This all
>> raises the question: what's the difference between REL8_2_STABLE,
>> REL8_2_0, and the 8.2.0 tarball?
> STABLE doesn't mean static. It's the branch for what will be the 8.1.x
> series. But REL8_2_0 should correspond pretty closely to the tarball, I
> believe.
REL8_2_0 is a tag, not a branch, and should correspond *exactly* to the
contents of the 8.2.0 tarball. The REL8_2_STABLE branch by now contains
a number of bug fixes, but that would only cause a patch failure if the
patch were trying to tweak one of the code sections changed for bug
fixing, which seems a tad unlikely.
> Until we see the rejects it's hard to tell what the problem is,
> though.
Yeah, this is all pretty meaningless without seeing the rejects.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-12-18 20:06:48 | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-12-18 19:57:39 | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-12-18 20:06:48 | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-12-18 19:57:39 | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |