Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBBD9FC0FE for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:33:35 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44874-08 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:33:30 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66F79FC08F for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:33:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from [172.16.0.214] (u041251.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [203.212.41.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF78DCC2CD; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:33:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45DEA6E0.9070605@hagander.net> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:33:36 +0100 From: Magnus Hagander User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Hammond CC: "Joshua D. Drake" , Bruce Momjian , Tom Lane , PostgreSQL www Subject: Re: [DOCS] should we have a separate page that clearly defines what a minor release is and why it's a good idea to keep up with them? References: <20070221144716.GA21044@svr2.hagander.net> <200702211507.l1LF7Me12089@momjian.us> <5a0a9d6f0702211113v740f5014m6e1df594303196b2@mail.gmail.com> <45DD8E15.2050006@hagander.net> <5a0a9d6f0702221541x71705642if61ab67ef32d6cdb@mail.gmail.com> <45DE2AED.1040306@commandprompt.com> <5a0a9d6f0702221549x3c5acab0k5ada06a76bb6686a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5a0a9d6f0702221549x3c5acab0k5ada06a76bb6686a@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200702/245 X-Sequence-Number: 11650 Andrew Hammond wrote: > On 2/22/07, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> >> > On the front page, we already have "Latest Releases" with links >> to the >> >> > most recent release for each version still actively maintained and >> >> > release notes. (Would it make sense to change that title from >> "Latest >> >> > Releases" to "Actively Maintained Releases") >> >> >> >> I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each >> branch", >> >> not "these are the actively maintained branches". >> > >> > Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then? >> > >> > Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there. >> >> <7.3 is EOL. We still back patch what we can but they are considered >> deprecated. > > Yeah, I figured that was the criteria. So, is it not reasonable to say > that the releases listed on the front page under "Latest Releases" are > actually "Current minor release for branches which have not reached > EoL"? Perhaps instead of "Latest Releases" or "Actively Maintained > Releases" something like "Current Releases" says that better? "Current Releases" I'm fine with - that seems to get the point across a bit better than what we have today, I think. If people agree, we'll just go bug Tom (or was it Toms wife?) about generating a new image for us to put there. //Magnus