On Nov 26, 2012 7:15 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Hari Babu <haribabu.kommi@huawei.com> writes:
> > When I was trying get the source code from ftp source, I found that
> > 9.2.0beta1 and 9.2beta1 are pointing to
> > 9.2.0beta1 source code. Is it intentional or Is there any source code
> > difference between 9.2.0beta1 and 9.2beta1?
>
> We do not use version strings like "9.2.0beta1". Not sure where you
> found that. "9.2beta1" was the version string for that beta release,
> and then "9.2.0" was the first official release in the 9.2 series.
>
> In bygone days this sort of thing was somewhat dependent on the whims
> of whoever packaged a particular release tarball; but for the last few
> years we've used src/tools/version_stamp.pl, which is intentionally
> quite anal-retentive about what spellings it will allow.
>
There was a mistake in naming the directories for 9.2,and therefore a symlink was created so that both the incorrect and the correct name could be used.
/Magnus
