-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
>> 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 bra
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 15:33, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>>> 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 mat
-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
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 18:34, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>>> 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 ma
-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)
>> cl
(adding pgsql-www, isn't this more a www question than a general
postgresql usage question?)
2010/1/29 Greg Sabino Mullane :
>
>
> While looking into a failed check_postgres check, I found a problem
> with the canonical versions page here:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/versions.rss
>
> It only go
