Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I am wondering whether to leave the release note pages for 8.3.2, 8.2.8,
> >> etc saying "Release date: 2008-06-09", or to change them to something
> >> like "Never released". Thoughts?
> > I think a mention in the 8.3.3 notes saying something like "the 8.3.2
> > version was never released to the public because it contained a bug"
> > should be enough -- so all release note items should be for 8.3.3.
> The implication being that our other releases *don't* contain bugs?
No, the implication being that we learned of this bug and its severity
just before the release was carried out in full.
> Seems a bit wordy to me, and anyway I just finished committing them
> the other way ...
Just a matter of taste anyway, probably. I saw an announcements like
that a couple of days ago, which is what prompted my suggestion.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ||Date: 2008-06-09 13:24:35|
|Subject: Unable to build 8.3.3 pdf|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-07 22:13:55|
|Subject: Re: "Release date" for aborted releases? |