Thread: Regarding getting source from 9.2.0beta1 and 9.2beta1.

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.

            regards, tom lane

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