-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 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
> Do we really, officially, care?
Well, yes, we certainly should. Just because a branch is no longer officially
supported doesn't mean we want to discourage people from running the latest
>> upgrade to 9.0 as soon as possible, but to upgrade to 7.4.27 *immaediately*.
> We should be, and afaik are, telling people to upgrade away from 7.4
> immidiately *already*.
Well, sure, but there's a world of difference from upgrading from 7.4.2 to
7.4.27 and from upgrading from 7.4.2 to 8.4.2.
> The *meaning* has always been supported versions, but if you read the
> contents of the feed it does say latest.
Well, I'd prefer to have the old versions, but I can handle the status quo. As
long nobody pulls versions before they are really dead again. :)
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201002111128
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Matteo Beccati||Date: 2010-02-13 12:34:56|
|Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches|
|Previous:||From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ||Date: 2010-02-06 21:24:09|
|Subject: Re: Server problem|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Carsten Kropf||Date: 2010-02-11 16:38:21|
|Subject: Re: Extending SQL in C using VARIABLE length type |
|Previous:||From: Adrian Klaver||Date: 2010-02-11 15:52:39|
|Subject: Re: Postgres Triggers issue|