From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Matt Miller <pgsql(at)mattmillersf(dot)fastmail(dot)fm> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |
Date: | 2006-12-18 19:54:58 |
Message-ID: | 4586F212.3070904@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Matt Miller wrote:
>> When I apply pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch to Postgres REL8_2_STABLE I get
>> a handful of rejects.
>>
>
> The patch applies to the 8.2.0 tarball without rejects and without
> fuzz. That's good. Now on to some fun with pgcluster...
>
> 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. Until we see the rejects it's hard to tell what the problem is,
though.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-12-18 19:57:39 | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |
Previous Message | Matt Miller | 2006-12-18 19:44:29 | 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-12-18 19:57:39 | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |
Previous Message | Matt Miller | 2006-12-18 19:44:29 | 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch) |