Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Matt Miller <pgsql(at)mattmillersf(dot)fastmail(dot)fm>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Date: 2006-12-18 19:57:39
Message-ID: 20061218195739.GK12526@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Matt Miller wrote:
> >>When I apply pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch to Postgres REL8_2_STABLE I get
> >>a handful of rejects.
> >
> >The patch applies to the 8.2.0 tarball without rejects and without
> >fuzz. That's good. Now on to some fun with pgcluster...
> >
> >However, the patch will not apply to cvs branch REL8_2_0. This all
> >raises the question: what's the difference between REL8_2_STABLE,
> >REL8_2_0, and the 8.2.0 tarball?
>
> STABLE doesn't mean static. It's the branch for what will be the 8.1.x
> series. But REL8_2_0 should correspond pretty closely to the tarball, I
> believe. Until we see the rejects it's hard to tell what the problem is,
> though.

I've been told that the pgcluster patch patches some generated files
(parse.h and other apparently). It would be no surprise that it failed
on those.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-12-18 20:00:50 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-12-18 19:54:58 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-12-18 20:00:50 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-12-18 19:54:58 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE