On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 18:34, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> 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 major/minor
>>> combo is super old?
>
>> No, I don't think we should. We should list supported versions only.
>> And check_postgres could be advised to throw a warning at least if
>> you're running an unsupported version ;)
>
> 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 matter how old it is?
We don't support 7.3. Not even if you run the latest version.
> How about a compromise? We add a new field to that XML so we can state
> that it is unsupported, but leave it in there. That way, programs such
> as check_postgres can not only distinguish between old but valid versions
> and invalid versions (e.g. "7.typo.oops") but can act in a more intelligent
> way for unsupported versions. Heck, maybe an estimated end-of-life date
> field for all versions as well?
How do you add that field in a backwards compatible way? Meaning that
people or tools relying on it should *not* see 7.3 or 6.1 or whatever.
And it needs to be done within the RSS spec (which does allow custom
namespaces though, so that may not be a problem)
As for an estimated end-of-life, yes, we could definitely add that.
Now that we finally have it :-)
> Either way, please add 7.4 back in. :)
Done, will be on in the next site rebuild.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
