Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created
Date
Msg-id 3811.1494988627@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 5/16/17 18:14, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote:
>> Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created.

> Was this change in naming pattern intentional?

Yes, it was.  Andrew Dunstan suggested[1] during the
two-part-version-number discussion that we should start including a "_"
after REL in tag and branch names for v10 and later, so that those names
would sort correctly compared to the tag/branch names for earlier branches
(at least when using C locale).  I believe his main concern was some logic
in the buildfarm, but it seems like a good idea in general.

When we get to v100, we'll need some other hack to make it work ...
but I plan to be safely dead by then.

BTW, I now remember having wondered[2] if we should make any other changes
in version-number formatting while we're at it, like maybe "10beta1"
should be "10.beta1".  It's a bit late to have remembered it for beta1,
but is anyone hot to change anything else about these labels?

            regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/57364C11.4040004@dunslane.net
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20780.1463176901%40sss.pgh.pa.us


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improvement in log message of logical replication worker
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] COPY FROM STDIN behaviour on end-of-file