Thread: pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
From
scrappy@postgresql.org (Marc G. Fournier)
Date:
Log Message:
-----------
configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql:
configure (r1.577 -> r1.578)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.577&r2=1.578)
configure.in (r1.545 -> r1.546)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure.in?r1=1.545&r2=1.546)
I don't see the branch point for REL8_3_STABLE - has that been done? I thought it would happen at the same time as we tagged the release. cheers andrew Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Log Message: > ----------- > > configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59 > > Modified Files: > -------------- > pgsql: > configure (r1.577 -> r1.578) > (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.577&r2=1.578) > configure.in (r1.545 -> r1.546) > (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure.in?r1=1.545&r2=1.546) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > >
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > I don't see the branch point for REL8_3_STABLE - has that been done? I > thought it would happen at the same time as we tagged the release. No, we will branch later. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > cheers > > andrew > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Log Message: > > ----------- > > > > configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59 > > > > Modified Files: > > -------------- > > pgsql: > > configure (r1.577 -> r1.578) > > (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.577&r2=1.578) > > configure.in (r1.545 -> r1.546) > > (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure.in?r1=1.545&r2=1.546) > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> I don't see the branch point for REL8_3_STABLE - has that been done? I >> thought it would happen at the same time as we tagged the release. >> > > No, we will branch later. > > Still not there. We need this to be created before buildfarm members can start testing 8.3. I still don't see why we wait to create the branch after tagging the release. There doesn't seem to be any point. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >> I don't see the branch point for REL8_3_STABLE - has that been done? I > >> thought it would happen at the same time as we tagged the release. > >> > > > > No, we will branch later. > > > > > > Still not there. > > We need this to be created before buildfarm members can start testing 8.3. > > I still don't see why we wait to create the branch after tagging the > release. There doesn't seem to be any point. We need an 8.3 tag, but not a branch. Is there no tag? We don't branch because we want to apply 8.3 fixes to CVS HEAD for a while, to avoid double-patching. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I don't see the branch point for REL8_3_STABLE - has that been done? I >>>> thought it would happen at the same time as we tagged the release. >>>> >>>> >>> No, we will branch later. >>> >>> >>> >> Still not there. >> >> We need this to be created before buildfarm members can start testing 8.3. >> >> I still don't see why we wait to create the branch after tagging the >> release. There doesn't seem to be any point. >> > > We need an 8.3 tag, but not a branch. Is there no tag? > > We don't branch because we want to apply 8.3 fixes to CVS HEAD for a > while, to avoid double-patching. > > I give up. We seem to look for ways to make things more difficult sometimes. We are hampering the buildfarm, and keeping the tree frozen, and thus preventing feature commits, on the off chance that there will be some bug fix that we don't want to double patch. We backport fixes all the time. Why is it such a big deal? Are we waiting for magic pixie dust? When we released 8.2, my archives show that HEAD was stamped as 8.3devel the same day. That also doesn't seem to have been done yet, but anyway, the branch for _STABLE must have been done before that time. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >>> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> >>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't see the branch point for REL8_3_STABLE - has that been >>>>> done? I thought it would happen at the same time as we tagged the >>>>> release. >>>>> >>>> No, we will branch later. >>>> >>>> >>> Still not there. >>> >>> We need this to be created before buildfarm members can start testing >>> 8.3. >>> >>> I still don't see why we wait to create the branch after tagging the >>> release. There doesn't seem to be any point. >>> >> >> We need an 8.3 tag, but not a branch. Is there no tag? >> >> We don't branch because we want to apply 8.3 fixes to CVS HEAD for a >> while, to avoid double-patching. >> >> > > I give up. We seem to look for ways to make things more difficult > sometimes. We are hampering the buildfarm, and keeping the tree frozen, > and thus preventing feature commits, on the off chance that there will > be some bug fix that we don't want to double patch. We backport fixes > all the time. Why is it such a big deal? Are we waiting for magic pixie > dust? > > When we released 8.2, my archives show that HEAD was stamped as 8.3devel > the same day. That also doesn't seem to have been done yet, but anyway, > the branch for _STABLE must have been done before that time. +1 on getting the branch + stamping done ASAP. //Magnus