| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Odd CVS revision number |
| Date: | 2010-02-25 14:46:49 |
| Message-ID: | 2896.1267109209@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I just noticed that the revision numbering for the new
> src/doc/sgml/recovery-config.sgml file I added started from 2 for some
> reason. The first revision was 2.1, and when I just updated it the new
> revision became 2.2.
> It seems to work fine, but I've never seen CVS revision numbers like
> that before. Anyone have a clue what might've caused that? Will that
> cause confusion?
No, CVS does that sometimes. If you root around in the manual you can
find an explanation of how it chooses the initial revision number, but
I don't recall the triggering condition offhand. We have several other
files that have 2.x version numbers for no particular reason except CVS
felt like assigning one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-02-25 14:59:53 | Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-25 14:27:25 | Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL |