Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Matt Miller <pgsql(at)mattmillersf(dot)fastmail(dot)fm>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Date: 2006-12-18 19:54:58
Message-ID: 4586F212.3070904@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

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.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-12-18 19:57:39 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Previous Message Matt Miller 2006-12-18 19:44:29 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-12-18 19:57:39 Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Previous Message Matt Miller 2006-12-18 19:44:29 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (was: [GENERAL] pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch)