From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Regarding getting source from 9.2.0beta1 and 9.2beta1. |
Date: | 2012-11-26 08:32:13 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEwxdhBztOiQ59JPHr3ML9MkycN5pVTengaCLCeom_KjAA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Nov 26, 2012 7:15 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com> writes:
> > When I was trying get the source code from ftp source, I found that
> > 9.2.0beta1 and 9.2beta1 are pointing to
> > 9.2.0beta1 source code. Is it intentional or Is there any source code
> > difference between 9.2.0beta1 and 9.2beta1?
>
> We do not use version strings like "9.2.0beta1". Not sure where you
> found that. "9.2beta1" was the version string for that beta release,
> and then "9.2.0" was the first official release in the 9.2 series.
>
> In bygone days this sort of thing was somewhat dependent on the whims
> of whoever packaged a particular release tarball; but for the last few
> years we've used src/tools/version_stamp.pl, which is intentionally
> quite anal-retentive about what spellings it will allow.
>
There was a mistake in naming the directories for 9.2,and therefore a
symlink was created so that both the incorrect and the correct name could
be used.
/Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2012-11-26 08:33:06 | Re: Restore postgres to specific time |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2012-11-26 08:18:13 | Re: Issue with pg_toast tables |