Re: stable snapshots...

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>> Not sure about the usefulness of the extra stable tarballs ... doesn't
>>> most of the back patching happen just as we are about to release the new
>>> versions?
>
>> Not sure where you got that idea. There are plenty of times when
>> somebody (mostly Tom) commits a bugfix and tells the reporter, stating
>> that the release date of the new version is some undetermined point in
>> the future. Not everyone is able to grab the patch from CVS and apply
>> it; my guess is that most people simply wait for the next stable
>> release. Those people would benefit from having the older stable
>> branches, so here's a +1 to Stefan's idea.
>
> Yeah. When we have fixed a bug but not yet released an official version
> with the fix, somebody who needs that bug fix has three choices:
> * manually apply the patch to a recent tarball;
> * pull from CVS;
> * use a nightly snapshot.
> The first two cases require having extra tools like appropriate bison
> and flex versions (which right now is looking like a bigger deal than
> I would wish :-().
>
> If we can build nightly snapshots for a release or two back without
> undue effort, I think it'd be a useful service.

Its not a problem to do it, I've just only noticed the 'bulk patches'
close to releases ...

How far do we want to go back? Straight to what is considered
"supported"?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664