| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Link t the souce code |
| Date: | 2021-07-21 18:14:23 |
| Message-ID: | 713760.1626891263@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Seems reasonable -- pushed with that last change.
Hm ... actually, now that I read the committed patch, I realize that
it's effectively recommending that people build their installations
from the latest commit on master. That might be what aspiring PG
hackers want to do, but it's quite unlikely that Joe DBA wants to.
I think if we're going to recommend pulling the git repo as the
way to get the sources, we at least ought to recommend a
"git checkout REL_n_STABLE" step, and point out that this gives
you branch tip not a released-and-QAed version. On the whole though,
I'm having qualms about recommending this in this particular spot,
rather than back in Appendix I. Seems like the wrong audience is
going to be reading this chapter.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-07-21 18:24:42 | Re: Link t the souce code |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-07-21 18:09:00 | Re: Link t the souce code |