Re: stable snapshots...

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>> Not sure about the usefulness of the extra stable tarballs ... doesn't 
>>>> most of the back patching happen just as we are about to release the new 
>>>> versions?
>> 
>>> Not sure where you got that idea.  There are plenty of times when
>>> somebody (mostly Tom) commits a bugfix and tells the reporter, stating
>>> that the release date of the new version is some undetermined point in
>>> the future.  Not everyone is able to grab the patch from CVS and apply
>>> it; my guess is that most people simply wait for the next stable
>>> release.  Those people would benefit from having the older stable
>>> branches, so here's a +1 to Stefan's idea.
>> 
>> Yeah.  When we have fixed a bug but not yet released an official version
>> with the fix, somebody who needs that bug fix has three choices:
>>     * manually apply the patch to a recent tarball;
>>     * pull from CVS;
>>     * use a nightly snapshot.
>> The first two cases require having extra tools like appropriate bison
>> and flex versions (which right now is looking like a bigger deal than
>> I would wish :-().
>
> actually nagios just noticed that we managed to break our own -HEAD snapshot 
> generation with this change as well...
> I have now fixed that script(and installed a more modern flex on 
> developer.postgresql.org) as well but I think we have some more work to do in 
> order to improve the robustness of those scripts...

Ummmmm ... you didn't break things, did you?  Specifically as far as old 
builds are concerned??  There is a reason why we have an older flex on 
that machine :(  Have you tested the new one you installed against all the 
other releases?

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org                              MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664