Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> - --On Tuesday, April 01, 2008 14:06:09 -0400 Tom Lane
> <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> >> In the meantime, does anyone have more information about how this
> >> came about?
> > Marc's always done both the tagging and the tarball-making, so you'd
> > have to ask him about that. I believe he's made it more scripted
> > over the years, so this might reflect a manual foulup that
> > (hopefully) is no longer possible.
> Ya, I'll go with that (considering 7.1 was back in 2001 ... ) ...
> but, from the way Peter describes it (taging partially checked out
> code), I'm not 100% how its possible to 'foul up' ... a tag operation
> cvs -q update -APd .
> cvs -q tag REL7_1 .
> unless its a sub-tagging, which would have:
> cvs -q update -rREL7_1_STABLE -Pd .
> cvs -q tag REL7_1_1 .
> And since I don't do the update until things are "quiet" (generally
> when Tom has finished his last commit before release), I'm not sure
> how I could have gotten a 'partial checkout' ...
Could it be that a commit was done while the tag operation was running?
Given that neither is an atomic operation in cvs, and it used to be
that large repo operations could take quite a long time?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zdenek Kotala||Date: 2008-04-02 08:58:59|
|Subject: Re: bug in float8in()|
|Previous:||From: NikhilS||Date: 2008-04-02 07:23:27|
|Subject: Re: Problem identifying constraints which should not be inherited|