Re: Given that 9.0.1 is out ...

Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 22:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> >> ... can we remove the 9.0beta and RC directories from FTP now?
> >> >
> >> > Seems this is still not done:
> >> >
> >> > ? ? ? ?v9.0beta1
> >> > ? ? ? ?v9.0beta2
> >> > ? ? ? ?v9.0beta3
> >> > ? ? ? ?v9.0beta4
> >> > ? ? ? ?v9.0rc1
> >> > ? ? ? ?v9.1alpha1
> >>
> >> Well, remove 9.1alpha1 wouldn't be a good idea. ?We could possibly
> >> remove the others, but I'm not sure we have any consensus that this is
> >> the right thing to do.
> >
> > Could me as a +1 to only have stable releases. Anyone who wants and
> > unstable release can pull from git.
>
> I assume you're not really saying that we shouldn't offer alpha
> downloads, or snapshot tarballs?

I misread the alpha1 as 9.0 alpha1, so forget that item. The issue is
the presence of 9.0 beta and rc downloads.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +