Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] patches now that 6.3 has been released

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Michael Meskes <meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] patches now that 6.3 has been released
Date: 1998-03-03 13:19:16
Message-ID: 34FC0354.4020F693@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> What the procedure now? Is there a need to provide patches for 6.3, or is
> this only done for serious bug? That is new features go only into 6.4 as
> usual.
>
> My last minor patch (allowing exec sql vacuum) didn't make it into cvs it
> seems. Should this be updated in 6.3 or should I just resubmit with changes
> for 6.4?

What we did for v6.2.1 which seemed to work pretty well was this:

if a patch can fit into v6.2.1, we wrote it into /pub/patches and updated the
README in the same directory. Of the literally hundreds (thousands?) of
changes for v6.3, there were only ~7 patches posted for v6.2.1 fixes. Of
course, we also submitted the patch separately for the development code tree.

If the patch diverged from a clean v6.2.1 installation, we just submitted it
for the next release and left it at that. I think that _minor_ and obvious bug
fixes could go into the code tree now, and then Marc can choose whether to
include them in any new snapshot releases or on the CDROM. We are holding off
on submitting new work for a week or two, partly to recover from the last few
weeks and partly to see how solid v6.3 is...

                                                          - Tom


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 1998-03-03 13:21:02
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL - the Linux of Databases...
Previous:From: Michael J. RoganDate: 1998-03-03 13:04:12
Subject: Good Work.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group