Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Am Monday, 9. June 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> >> So while tagging the upcoming releases, I got annoyed once again about
> >> what a tedious, error-prone bit of donkeywork it is.
>
> > Could you explain what the problem is? Your script sounds like an ad hoc
> > workaround for some problem, but I haven't seen the problem actually defined.
>
> The problem is having to manually insert the version number into half a
> dozen different files, in half a dozen different formats, while
> preparing an update release. (And multiply that by several back
> branches, with several slightly different sets of changes to make.)
> This is not only tedious but quite error-prone --- if you check the CVS
> logs for the affected files you'll note we have missed changes more than
> once. I don't think we've yet wrapped a mis-labeled tarball, but it's
> going to happen sooner or later if we keep doing this manually.
>
> I suspect you are wondering why we don't use the makefile infrastructure
> to fix the numbers instead. I think the reason is that most of the
> files in question are for Windows and we can't assume very much about
> the available tools for fixing them at build time. In any case, I'd
> be hesitant to back-patch such a fix. Doing it this way means that the
> script only has to work on our own machines, not in any weird build
> environment someone might have, so it seems a lot safer to drop into
> the back branches.
Yes, I like the idea of automating this.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
