Subject: "Release date" for aborted releases?

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:02:57 -0400

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

---

From: "Jaime Casanova" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:26:20 -0500

> 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

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:40:17 -0400

> 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

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:13:55 -0400

> 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

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:10:26 -0400

> 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

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.

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:10:37 -0400

> 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

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:13:33 -0400

> 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