On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
>> > > and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X. I am not sure what
>> > > requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the
>> > > most
>> > > recent versions of _all_ major releases. If they just didn't list
>> > > 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is that
>> > > sufficient? Does someone know? I am CC'ing two of our web people.
>> >
>> > We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
>> > coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
>> > on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
>> > which case, I'd push for all of them).
>>
>> OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
>> 9.3.X release or update it? I can do that. Do we want to require all
>> supported branches and check all existing links?
>>
>
> We'll get 9.3.6 up ASAP. It must have just fallen through the cracks.
>
Thanks Jim. Can you check that whoever your representative on the
-packagers list is is the most appropriate person please? That's one
way it might have been missed I guess.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
