| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 7.5 Plans |
| Date: | 2003-11-27 05:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20262.1069909911@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
>> So, what does changing it to $PostgreSQL$ do? Or am I reading the wrong
>> part of the manual?
> The BSDs wen't through similar measures to ensure they could maintain
> multiple CVS sources without diff / patch going nuts.
Yeah, I have gotten similar requests from Red Hat's internal development
group. $PostgreSQL$ doesn't do anything for *us* ... but it makes life
easier for other people trying to import PG sources into their own CVS
trees. In light of the Grand Scheme for World Domination, that seems
like a worthwhile improvement to me ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-27 05:23:40 | Re: 7.5 Plans |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-27 04:32:44 | Re: 7.5 Plans |