pgsql: Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.

Started by Nonameover 15 years ago8 messages
#1Noname
tgl@postgresql.org

Log Message:
-----------
Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.
(And there was much rejoicing.)

Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql:
configure (r1.684 -> r1.685)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.684&r2=1.685)
configure.in (r1.632 -> r1.633)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure.in?r1=1.632&r2=1.633)
pgsql/doc:
bug.template (r1.63 -> r1.64)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/bug.template?r1=1.63&r2=1.64)
pgsql/src/include:
pg_config.h.win32 (r1.73 -> r1.74)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/include/pg_config.h.win32?r1=1.73&r2=1.74)
pgsql/src/interfaces/libpq:
libpq.rc.in (r1.12 -> r1.13)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/interfaces/libpq/libpq.rc.in?r1=1.12&r2=1.13)
pgsql/src/port:
win32ver.rc (r1.15 -> r1.16)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/port/win32ver.rc?r1=1.15&r2=1.16)
pgsql/src/tools:
version_stamp.pl (r1.6 -> r1.7)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/tools/version_stamp.pl?r1=1.6&r2=1.7)

#2Robert Haas
robertmhaas@gmail.com
In reply to: Noname (#1)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@postgresql.org> wrote:

Log Message:
-----------
Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.
(And there was much rejoicing.)

/me opens a beer.

How long should I wait before I start breaking things?

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

#3David E. Wheeler
david@kineticode.com
In reply to: Robert Haas (#2)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.

On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:

/me opens a beer.

How long should I wait before I start breaking things?

I should think that you would need to drink at least 5-6 beers before you started stumbling around and breaking shit.

David

#4Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Robert Haas (#2)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.
(And there was much rejoicing.)

/me opens a beer.

How long should I wait before I start breaking things?

Did you have any particular breakage in mind?

I'm hesitant to have a whole lot of variance between REL9_0_STABLE and
HEAD just yet, since we'll surely be doing a lot of double-patching for
awhile. Localized patches, no problem, but this might not be the best
time to s/foo/bar/g or something like that.

regards, tom lane

#5Robert Haas
robertmhaas@gmail.com
In reply to: Tom Lane (#4)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.
(And there was much rejoicing.)

/me opens a beer.

How long should I wait before I start breaking things?

Did you have any particular breakage in mind?

I'm hesitant to have a whole lot of variance between REL9_0_STABLE and
HEAD just yet, since we'll surely be doing a lot of double-patching for
awhile.  Localized patches, no problem, but this might not be the best
time to s/foo/bar/g or something like that.

Well, you can see for yourself what I've submitted for the next CF.
As those things get reviewed, I'd like to get them committed; many of
them need follow-on patches in which I don't want to invest too much
effort until the initial patches go in. And then, too, other people
have also submitted patches which I will be working on also.

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

#6Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Robert Haas (#5)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

How long should I wait before I start breaking things?

Did you have any particular breakage in mind?

Well, you can see for yourself what I've submitted for the next CF.

You might want to hold off on the get_whatever_oid patches for a bit,
but the other stuff I see there looks pretty localized. No objection
to pressing forward with CF work otherwise.

regards, tom lane

#7Robert Haas
robertmhaas@gmail.com
In reply to: Tom Lane (#6)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

How long should I wait before I start breaking things?

Did you have any particular breakage in mind?

Well, you can see for yourself what I've submitted for the next CF.

You might want to hold off on the get_whatever_oid patches for a bit,
but the other stuff I see there looks pretty localized.  No objection
to pressing forward with CF work otherwise.

I can hold off on those for a bit - I don't think there will be enough
drift to matter very much, but if it makes you more comfortable, it's
not a big deal. What I really want to get committed is this one,
which is infrastructure for a further large patch:

include Backend ID in relpath for temp rels
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=302

However, I need someone fairly knowledgeable to review it first.

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

#8Robert Haas
robertmhaas@gmail.com
In reply to: Robert Haas (#7)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp HEAD as 9.1devel.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

How long should I wait before I start breaking things?

Did you have any particular breakage in mind?

Well, you can see for yourself what I've submitted for the next CF.

You might want to hold off on the get_whatever_oid patches for a bit,
but the other stuff I see there looks pretty localized.  No objection
to pressing forward with CF work otherwise.

I can hold off on those for a bit - I don't think there will be enough
drift to matter very much, but if it makes you more comfortable, it's
not a big deal.

I checked on these patches today and there was only one, quite trivial
conflict (and the relevant patch was not even something that was
back-patched). So I think there is not much reason to hold off any
longer on committing these.

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