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

Re: Several tags around PostgreSQL 7.1 broken

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Several tags around PostgreSQL 7.1 broken
Date: 2008-04-02 23:18:03
Message-ID: 3D56C00B49492C0DEC4FC67F@ganymede.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Wednesday, April 02, 2008 17:49:49 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 
wrote:


> It doesn't, of course.  What it does do is guarantee that the tarball
> matches the tag that has already been laid down in CVS.

'k, that was my thought, so using export vs update to create the tarbal is 
irrelevant to this discussion ...

> But there must have been more to it than that.  Peter is reporting
> that the tag is on mutually inconsistent versions of some files;
> which means that the problem was with the tagging operation more than
> with the tarball-making.

Has anyone actually checked the tarballs themselves?  If the tag's are wrong, 
then doesn't it follow that the tarballs themselves are all wrong too?

- -- 
Marc G. Fournier        Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org                              MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFH9BQr4QvfyHIvDvMRAjC9AJ9qBRom7aU7LWmZGnhfOFtbwv7zRQCgxPqx
qv5B4ffClv4RRXc2FVg6LpI=
=zjTy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-04-02 23:35:44
Subject: Re: Patch queue -> wiki (was varadic patch)
Previous:From: Decibel!Date: 2008-04-02 23:05:39
Subject: Re: writing a MIN(RECORD) aggregate

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