| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: .gitignore files, take two |
| Date: | 2010-09-21 19:32:04 |
| Message-ID: | 7841.1285097524@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 20:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Just paranoia, I guess. I can't actually see a reason why we'd have
>> any committable files in the tree matching that pattern. OTOH, we
>> probably also need the same type of pattern for .sl and .dylib,
>> so at some point a more conservative pattern would be wise.
> Do we know what the exact pattern would be for .sl and .dylib? Are
> they following the same basic pattern of .sl.<major>.<minor>?
Yes, they'll be just the same --- Makefile.shlib treats all those
extensions alike.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-09-21 19:43:22 | Re: .gitignore files, take two |
| Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2010-09-21 19:24:42 | Re: Git conversion status |