Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:10:26 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: "Release date" for aborted releases?
Message-ID: <20080607231026.GT16502@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <21335.1212858177@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20080607214017.GR16502@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<24338.1212876835@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <24338.1212876835@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

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.