On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:25:58PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Oh, now I see what you're referring to. My bad. > > And then the proper answer is no, it should not say 9.6beta2. Because it lists > the *major* version, not the minor. We do attach the beta to make sure people > realize it's not released, but if you look at the same place for 9.5 for > example, you see it says 9.5 not 9.5.3. >
While useful, I don't think that site really is an authority on what is on the main website. It's really the other way around...
Development: 9.6 beta, 9.6beta2
For previous releases it showed:
Development: 9.5 beta, 9.6
I think the difference is that we didn't split off the tree after the first beta like we normally do. Anyway, the display is accurate, so I guess it is fine. Thanks.
Once there is a branch for 10.0 to load docs from the display will change to include it yes.
But I'm fairly sure we don't normally split off the tree after the first beta. 9.5 for example we split off way before the beta (at alpha1). My first guess would be that the symptoms is mostly because of observation time :)
