Re: Stable vs Current (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha)

From: Ryan Kirkpatrick <rkirkpat(at)nag(dot)cs(dot)colorado(dot)edu>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Stable vs Current (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha)
Date: 1999-07-30 16:31:52
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.10.9907301026150.4356-100000@excelsior.rkirkpat.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Ryan Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > Hmm... I don't think other people want to roll in the alpha
> > patches into the stable tree (with good reason). I think we are best off
> > with just an alpha only version of pgsql via patches on 6.5.1, and leave
> > integration of the alpha patches into the full pgsql source tree for 6.6.
> > My two cents.
>
> We are going to be rolling a v6.5.2, and .3, and .4 ... basically, until
> v6.6 is released, v6.5.x is our stable release, and, from a commercial
> perspective, has to be maintained.

I understand that. It is just that from what time I have spent
looking at the alpha patches, they do a lot more than just "maintenance".
So while there may indeed by 6.5.2, .3, etc.. releases, none of them
should include the alpha patches in the source tree (instead have a new
set of "after release" alpha specific patches, or stick them in contrib).
I don't want to put the alpha patches in until after I have a chance to
review them (for compatiblity to other platforms), which will probably
take a few weeks to a few months.

> I don't expect anyone working on -current to maintain it, I'm going to
> work on it, but I do hope that if someone fixes a bug in -current that
> exists in -stable, and that can be *easily* fixed, that we get the fix in
> there also...

Sounds good... Only the alpha fixes don't fall under the heading
of "*easily* fixed in -stable", so they ought to stay out of there for
now.
Otherwise your seperation of stable from current trees is a good
idea, and I now have a better understanding of development and release of
pgsql, especially in relation to the alpha patches. Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." |
| --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Ryan Kirkpatrick | Boulder, Colorado | rkirkpat(at)nag(dot)cs(dot)colorado(dot)edu |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| http://www-ugrad.cs.colorado.edu/~rkirkpat/ |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ryan Kirkpatrick 1999-07-30 16:38:58 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 1999-07-30 16:08:06 Stable vs Current (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha)

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ryan Kirkpatrick 1999-07-30 16:38:58 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
Previous Message Louis Bertrand 1999-07-30 16:16:34 Re: weird lib problem building PostgreSQL