On lör, 2011-09-10 at 16:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Of course, this means that just building a source tarball marked
> "alpha1" isn't real useful.  If we're going to do alpha releases, we
> have to have buy-in from packagers (or at least from the Windows
> installer team) to do follow-on package wrapping. 

Yeah, and we aimed for that initially, but it didn't happen.  And
especially the Windows installers have the highest overhead of any of
the packaging efforts, so it's unclear how to get them on board
consistently.

In response to

• Re: Alpha 1 for 9.2 at 2011-09-10 20:34:48 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andy Colson	Date: 2011-09-10 21:10:19
	Subject: Re: [REVIEW] prepare plans of embedded sql on function start
Previous:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2011-09-10 21:00:20
	Subject: Re: Alpha 1 for 9.2