From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za>, t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |
Date: | 1999-08-25 14:55:32 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.10.9908251145370.86612-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> > The reason for the tag as to be able to return to the 6.5 release source
> > code. It's production code, and should be accessible at least for the next
> > couple of months.
> > Was a tag created for 6.5.1? The object is to be able to check out any
> > particular release, bugs and all, whenever we feel like it.
>
> You can always do a checkout by date if you need to capture the state of
> the cvs tree at some particular past time. Frozen tags are just a (very
> inefficient) way of remembering specific past times that you think are
> likely to be of interest.
Okay, you lost me on this one...why is it inefficient to tag the tree on
the date of a release vs trying to remember that date? *raised eyebrow*
In fact, vs trying to remember the exact date *and* time of a release?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-25 15:02:45 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 | 1999-08-25 14:33:02 | AW: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |