Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:44:07 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, josh@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-slavestothewww] New News Entry (id: 791)
Message-ID: <20070423164407.GC12624@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <200704231637.l3NGbOi10866@momjian.us>
	<462CE1F9.4010903@hagander.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <462CE1F9.4010903@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:59:31AM +0000, World Wide Web Owner wrote:
> >>> A new entry has been added to the news database.
> >>>
> >>> ----
> >>> Submitted by: josh@postgresql.org
> >>> Headline: Security Update Releases
> >>> Summary:
> >>>
> >>> The PGDG has released a new minor version which fixes a privilege escalation exploit, as well as assorted minor issues.
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> How come we're not even listing the version numbers of our upgrades in the
> >> news item?! A reason for it, or overlook?
> > 
> > Josh didn't have all releases mentioned in the original, so I didn't
> > add it.  What I did do, though, was to add the release numbers to the
> > email subject line.
> 
> I think it's important to include it, because a lot of people have no
> idea what we're talking about if we just say "back branches" or
> something like that. And I do believe it should go in the contents to be
> completely clear.

FWIW I tried to add the version numbers to the techdocs page but it said
it was being edited for so long that I gave up.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support