Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 20:00:50
Message-ID: 27915.1166472050@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Matt Miller wrote:
>> 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.

REL8_2_0 is a tag, not a branch, and should correspond *exactly* to the
contents of the 8.2.0 tarball. The REL8_2_STABLE branch by now contains
a number of bug fixes, but that would only cause a patch failure if the
patch were trying to tweak one of the code sections changed for bug
fixing, which seems a tad unlikely.

> Until we see the rejects it's hard to tell what the problem is,
> though.

Yeah, this is all pretty meaningless without seeing the rejects.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-12-18 20:06:48 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-12-18 19:57:39 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-12-18 20:06:48 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-12-18 19:57:39 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE