A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Mascari) wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 09 March 2004 10:46 am, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
BTW, I can't really see the harm in putting out 7.1.x and 7.2.x
releases to fix c
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The "harm" is the developer time spent on doing so. Releasing back
>> versions takes nontrivial effort (witness what it took to get 7.3.6
>> out the door :-().
> True; that said, much of this overhead is (IMHO) avoidable. There
> shoul
Tom Lane wrote:
The "harm" is the developer time spent on doing so. Releasing back
versions takes nontrivial effort (witness what it took to get 7.3.6
out the door :-().
True; that said, much of this overhead is (IMHO) avoidable. There
should be little or no manual intervention needed in the rele
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 10:46 am, Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTW, I can't really see the harm in putting out 7.1.x and 7.2.x
releases to fix compilation issues on modern systems.
Also, quite frankly, I don't want to encourage people to keep using
s
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 10:46 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > BTW, I can't really see the harm in putting out 7.1.x and 7.2.x
> > releases to fix compilation issues on modern systems.
> Also, quite frankly, I don't want to encourage people to keep using
> such old
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, I can't really see the harm in putting out 7.1.x and 7.2.x
> releases to fix compilation issues on modern systems.
The "harm" is the developer time spent on doing so. Releasing back
versions takes nontrivial effort (witness what it took to get 7.3.6
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yea, we probably aren't releasing any more 7.1.X releases though.
Perhaps it is worth applying to the 7.1 CVS branch, at least?
BTW, I can't really see the harm in putting out 7.1.x and 7.2.x
releases to fix compilation issues on modern systems. For example, I
believe that 7
Yea, we probably aren't releasing any more 7.1.X releases though.
---
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
> I've found a little bug in version 7.1.3 in conjunction w/ the
> new gcc, which prints our more than one line
Hi folks,
I've found a little bug in version 7.1.3 in conjunction w/ the
new gcc, which prints our more than one line on --version.
(simply added | head -n 1)
The problem is that the gcc --version output is copied into
confdefs.h and so produces compile erros.
This problem does not appear o
