| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za>, t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |
| Date: | 1999-08-25 15:02:45 |
| Message-ID: | 6374.935593365@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> Okay, you lost me on this one...why is it inefficient to tag the tree on
> the date of a release vs trying to remember that date? *raised eyebrow*
> In fact, vs trying to remember the exact date *and* time of a release?
Because you make an entry "REL6_5 => something or other" in *every*
*single* *file* of the CVS tree. It'd be more logical to store
"REL6_5 => 25 Aug 1999 11:55:32 -0300 (ADT)", or some such, in one
place. Dunno why the CVS people didn't think of that.
Inefficient though it be, I agree it's better than trying to remember
the release timestamps manually.
I'd suggest, though, that from here on out we use the short strings
like "REL6_6" for the branches, since people have much more need to
refer to the branches than specific release points. Tags for releases
could maybe be called "REL6_6_0", "REL6_6_1", etc.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Leon | 1999-08-25 16:35:10 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-08-25 14:55:32 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |