Обсуждение: "Release date" for aborted releases?
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?
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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? > "Never released" sounds better, otherwise people wil find an inconsistency between release notes and downloadable tarballs -- regards, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. (593) 87171157
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. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.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?
Seems a bit wordy to me, and anyway I just finished committing them
the other way ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.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.
On Saturday 07 June 2008 13:02:57 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?
>
At the time, I didn't think anything of this, but was reading through the
8.2.x release notes yesterday and the above now feels like an inconsistency
with what was done with 8.2.2, which we gave an official release date, and
the subsequent 8.2.3, which was released 2 days later. Now, I supposed 8.2.2
was further in the release process, but it was pretty much DOA as well.
Probably too late to do anything about this now, though I wonder, do we plan
to put 8.3.2 tarballs into the ftp-archives? We have 8.2.2 tarballs
available, though I can't imagine why anyone would need them.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> On Saturday 07 June 2008 13:02:57 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?
> At the time, I didn't think anything of this, but was reading through the
> 8.2.x release notes yesterday and the above now feels like an inconsistency
> with what was done with 8.2.2, which we gave an official release date, and
> the subsequent 8.2.3, which was released 2 days later. Now, I supposed 8.2.2
> was further in the release process, but it was pretty much DOA as well.
Well, those cases were different, in that the public announcements had
already gone out. This time was the first time we've ever pulled back
a release prior to announcement. If you read "release date" as meaning
"date of formal announcement email", then "never released" is exactly
the right thing, because you will find no email announcing those
releases in the pgsql-announce archives.
regards, tom lane