Re: Win32 version numbers not correct (again, but this one is easy)

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, is that the only place we missed it?  Might be worth diffing a make
>> distclean'd tree against a virgin one.

> I was under the impression we only wanted a new version number with a
> configure run, however, I can see that "make clean" perhaps should do it
> too.

No, it's not the source code file he's complaining about.

            regards, tom lane