On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:53 PM, 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.
>
> OK.
>
> > Do we want to require all
> > supported branches and check all existing links?
>
> I don't think we've ever required all support branches to be
> available, so it wouldn't be fair to ask for that now. I perhaps think
> we should for future additions to the page though.
>
>
I don't think we need to require all support branches. But we *should*
definitely require that any branch that *is* published must be kept up to
date with the latest minors.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
