| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extension Packaging |
| Date: | 2011-04-24 21:55:05 |
| Message-ID: | 18298.1303682105@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Apr 24, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IMO it'd be better if the bug fix level was tracked outside the
>> database, for instance via an RPM package version/release number.
>> I'm not sure whether PGXN has anything for that at the moment.
> Distributions may have their own versions independent of the versions of the extensions they contain. Is that sufficient?
Hmm ... it's sufficient, but I think people are going to be confused as
to proper usage if you call two different things the "version". In RPM
terminology there's a clear difference between "version" and "release";
maybe some similar wording should be adopted here? Or use "major
version" versus "minor version"?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-04-24 21:59:01 | Re: Extension Packaging |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-04-24 21:49:44 | Re: Extension Packaging |