| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New version numbering practices |
| Date: | 2016-08-03 16:27:23 |
| Message-ID: | 27551.1470241643@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/1/16 9:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I don't see any value to the _STABLE
>> suffix, given the way we treat branches.
> It would be nice to be able to tell easily from convention whether
> something is a branch or a tag.
Well, the rule would be that "REL_xx" is a branch, "REL_xx_yy" is a
release tag. Neither of these is confusable with old-style
branch or tag names. The alternative seems to be saying that
"REL_xx_STABLE" is a branch while "REL_xx_yy" is a release tag.
That works but it doesn't seem to have all that much to recommend it;
unless there is code in the buildfarm or elsewhere that really wants
to see _STABLE in the branch names.
> Anyway, this is a question for many months from now.
True, but we might as well make the decisions now.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Geoff Winkless | 2016-08-03 16:35:36 | Re: Implementing full UTF-8 support (aka supporting 0x00) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-08-03 16:12:19 | Re: New version numbering practices |