Re: Ready to roll beta

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
> Sent: 08 September 2004 09:46
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready to roll beta
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, but to do that (properly) I need to produce the tarball first.
> > That's the best way to ensure consistent releases. Or are
> you saying
> > that we ignore consistency in this instance?
>
> I don't understand the problem. The binary is for pginstaller
> only, and its supporting files (languages) might differ
> slightly from the official
> pgAdmin3 beta release (if we allow it) which we wouldn't
> publish and announce until cvs is tagged.
>
> The version number of pgAdmin3 that's included in pgInstaller
> should reflect that it is functionally identical to pgAdmin3 Beta1.
>
> How should this affect consistency?

Because it will claim to be beta1 even though it does not reflect and
cannot be rebuilt exactly the official beta1 tarball.

Sod it though it's only beta 1... I'll bump the version number and build
the win32 installer.

Regards, Dave