Re: Versions RSS page is missing version(s)

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Versions RSS page is missing version(s)
Date: 2010-02-01 14:33:11
Message-ID: 58ccaa650fe28775db542864277b854c@biglumber.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-www


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

>> I'm not sure how useful that is. Surely while we encourage people to run
>> a recent major version, we also want to encourage people who will not
>> or cannot upgrade to at least be running the latest revision of a branch,
>> no matter how old it is?

> We don't support 7.3. Not even if you run the latest version.

No, but I imagine we still would encourage people to run the latest revision
of it. Come this time next year, I hope that we'll tell people on 7.4.2 to
upgrade to 9.0 as soon as possible, but to upgrade to 7.4.27 *immaediately*.

>> How about a compromise? We add a new field to that XML so we can state
>> that it is unsupported, but leave it in there. That way, programs such
>> as check_postgres can not only distinguish between old but valid versions
>> and invalid versions (e.g. "7.typo.oops") but can act in a more intelligent
>> way for unsupported versions. Heck, maybe an estimated end-of-life date
>> field for all versions as well?

> How do you add that field in a backwards compatible way? Meaning that
> people or tools relying on it should *not* see 7.3 or 6.1 or whatever.
> And it needs to be done within the RSS spec (which does allow custom
> namespaces though, so that may not be a problem)

Well I don't know what people are reading the XML, so let's discuss tools.
Do you have a use case in mind where adding old versions would break something?
Has this always been advertised as a list of *supported* versions, or as a list
of the *latest* revisions? I've always assumed the latter was more important
that the former.

> As for an estimated end-of-life, yes, we could definitely add that.
> Now that we finally have it :-)

+1

>> Either way, please add 7.4 back in. :)
>
>Done, will be on in the next site rebuild.

Thanks much, and thanks to Devrim for originally spotting the bug.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201002010931
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAktm5hIACgkQvJuQZxSWSshVwwCeINTRgE7L5UWHJBIJgKDq3GIe
X/gAoOivHWlQaVI3nI+TWjUkwxTlicUx
=d+Yp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Amiel 2010-02-01 14:45:36 Another PANIC corrupt index/crash ...any thoughts?
Previous Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2010-02-01 14:15:47 Re: Can LISTEN/NOTIFY deal with more than 100 every second?

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-02-01 16:28:15 Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2010-02-01 14:16:44 Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches