-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 >> yet, so that page should be listing 7.4.27. Further, shouldn't we be keeping >> even 'unsupported' versions on this page, so (e.g. case of check_postgres.pl) >> clients can check if they have the latest revision, even if the major/minor >> combo is super old? > No, I don't think we should. We should list supported versions only. > And check_postgres could be advised to throw a warning at least if > you're running an unsupported version ;) 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? 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? Either way, please add 7.4 back in. :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001291229 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAktjHAoACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgCVQCguBaAiZQLoH9Q5nE4UEDymyp0 SQcAn1pf1rgEKDH6LrmmngBPtxketfA0 =XJcP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
