Thread: pgsql-bugs list description needs updating.

The description of pgsql-bugs list at 
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/ and 
http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/ says:

> If PostgreSQL failed to compile on your computer, please report it to pgsql-ports rather than this list. If you've
fixeda bug in PostgreSQL, please send it both to this list and also to the pgsql-patches list.
 

pgsql-ports and pgsql-patches have been retired, so the text needs some 
updating.

I wonder if we need to make the distinction, though? ISTM we could 
handle compilation failures through pgsql-bugs just as well.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> pgsql-ports and pgsql-patches have been retired, so the text needs some 
> updating.

Now that you mention it, there are mentions of both lists in the FAQ
as well as various places in the source code.

> I wonder if we need to make the distinction, though? ISTM we could 
> handle compilation failures through pgsql-bugs just as well.

+1, let's just point it all to bugs.
        regards, tom lane

I wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> pgsql-ports and pgsql-patches have been retired, so the text needs some 
>> updating.

> Now that you mention it, there are mentions of both lists in the FAQ
> as well as various places in the source code.

I've corrected this in CVS for all live branches, except for the
non-English FAQ documents, which I don't have a lot of confidence
in my ability to update without making it read poorly.  I think the
FAQ documents in question are out of date anyway, since there's no
such references in the English version.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> pgsql-ports and pgsql-patches have been retired, so the text needs some 
>>> updating.
> 
>> Now that you mention it, there are mentions of both lists in the FAQ
>> as well as various places in the source code.
> 
> I've corrected this in CVS for all live branches, except for the
> non-English FAQ documents, which I don't have a lot of confidence
> in my ability to update without making it read poorly.  I think the
> FAQ documents in question are out of date anyway, since there's no
> such references in the English version.

I've removed the reference from the bugs list description. It'll go on
the sites when they next update.

//Magnus