Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20080205090029.GB24114@svr2.hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:36:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes > > more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely > > don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when > > there has been no code drift is pretty simple. > > Well, it's not hard, but it is tedious. Bruce and I, who are the people > most likely to bear the brunt of such tedium, both voted to wait a week > or so before branching. Peter did not bother to vote. I assume this vote was taken out on -core? I don't mind -core deciding on this, not at all, but I would appreciate it if you would post the result of the vote on -hackers. It makes a lot of difference with an open-ended "we'll branch sometmie later" and a "we talked about it, and we decided we'll branch in one to two weeks unless something unusual comes up". If you alraedy did this and I missed it in the mail-flood around fixing all the presskits, I apologize in advance ;-) //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: