Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Date
Msg-id 4586F212.3070904@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch)  ("Matt Miller" <pgsql@mattmillersf.fastmail.fm>)
Responses Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE  ("Matt Miller" <pgsql@mattmillersf.fastmail.fm>)
List pgsql-hackers
Matt Miller wrote:
>> When I apply pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch to Postgres REL8_2_STABLE I get
>> a handful of rejects.
>>     
>
> The patch applies to the 8.2.0 tarball  without rejects and without
> fuzz. That's good.  Now on to some fun with pgcluster...
>
> However, the patch will not apply to cvs branch REL8_2_0.  This all
> raises the question: what's the difference between REL8_2_STABLE,
> REL8_2_0, and the 8.2.0 tarball?
>
>
>   

STABLE doesn't mean static. It's the branch for what will be the 8.1.x 
series. But REL8_2_0 should correspond pretty closely to the tarball, I 
believe. Until we see the rejects it's hard to tell what the problem is, 
though.

cheers

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Matt Miller"
Date:
Subject: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch)
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE