Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Update RELEASE_CHANGES' example of branch name format.

  1. pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created

    pgsql@postgresql.org — 2017-05-16T22:14:25Z

    Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created.

  2. Re: pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created

    Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> — 2017-05-17T02:18:32Z

    On 5/16/17 18:14, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote:
> Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created.

Was this change in naming pattern intentional?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  3. Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2017-05-17T02:37:07Z

    Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 5/16/17 18:14, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote:
>> Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created.

> Was this change in naming pattern intentional?

Yes, it was.  Andrew Dunstan suggested[1] during the
two-part-version-number discussion that we should start including a "_"
after REL in tag and branch names for v10 and later, so that those names
would sort correctly compared to the tag/branch names for earlier branches
(at least when using C locale).  I believe his main concern was some logic
in the buildfarm, but it seems like a good idea in general.

When we get to v100, we'll need some other hack to make it work ...
but I plan to be safely dead by then.

BTW, I now remember having wondered[2] if we should make any other changes
in version-number formatting while we're at it, like maybe "10beta1"
should be "10.beta1".  It's a bit late to have remembered it for beta1,
but is anyone hot to change anything else about these labels?

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/57364C11.4040004@dunslane.net
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20780.1463176901%40sss.pgh.pa.us

  4. Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> — 2017-05-17T12:04:04Z

    
On 05/16/2017 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 5/16/17 18:14, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote:
>>> Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created.
>> Was this change in naming pattern intentional?
> Yes, it was.  Andrew Dunstan suggested[1] during the
> two-part-version-number discussion that we should start including a "_"
> after REL in tag and branch names for v10 and later, so that those names
> would sort correctly compared to the tag/branch names for earlier branches
> (at least when using C locale).  I believe his main concern was some logic
> in the buildfarm, but it seems like a good idea in general.
>
> When we get to v100, we'll need some other hack to make it work ...
> but I plan to be safely dead by then.
>


Me too. Since posterity will be deprived of both of us let's note that
the same hack will work, we'll just need two underscores.

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  5. Re: pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created

    Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> — 2017-05-17T12:41:42Z

    On 5/16/17 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I now remember having wondered[2] if we should make any other changes
> in version-number formatting while we're at it, like maybe "10beta1"
> should be "10.beta1".

That's not a naming format I've ever seen.

I think the current format is fine.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  6. Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created

    Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2017-05-17T13:14:37Z

    On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/17 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> > BTW, I now remember having wondered[2] if we should make any other
> changes
> > in version-number formatting while we're at it, like maybe "10beta1"
> > should be "10.beta1".
>
> That's not a naming format I've ever seen.
>
> I think the current format is fine.
>
>
+1. I have also never seen that one, and think the current one is good.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>

  7. Re: pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2017-05-17T16:24:01Z

    On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Andrew Dunstan
<andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> When we get to v100, we'll need some other hack to make it work ...
>> but I plan to be safely dead by then.
>
> Me too. Since posterity will be deprived of both of us let's note that
> the same hack will work, we'll just need two underscores.

That cure sounds worse than the disease, but I guess we can leave the
decision to posterity.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company