Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: "Release date" for aborted releases?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: "Release date" for aborted releases?
Date: 2008-06-07 23:10:26
Message-ID: 20080607231026.GT16502@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs
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 GÜNDÜZDate: 2008-06-09 13:24:35
Subject: Unable to build 8.3.3 pdf
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-07 22:13:55
Subject: Re: "Release date" for aborted releases?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group