Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length

----- Original-Nachricht -----
Von: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
An: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
CC: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Datum: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 05:06 AM
Betreff: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Release cycle length

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> > That said, I'm not really sure how we can make better use of the beta
> > period. One obvious improvement would be making the beta announcements
> > more visible: the obscurity of the beta process on www.postgresql.org
> > for 7.4 was pretty ridiculous. Does anyone else have a suggestion on
> > what we can do to produce a more reliable .0 release in less time?
> 
> Agreed ... here's a thought ...
> 
> take the download page and break it into two pages:
> 
> page 1: broken down into "dev" vs "stable" versions, including the date of
> release ...
> 
> page 2: when you click on the version you want to download, it brings you
> to a subpage that is what the main page currently is (with all the flags
> and such) but instead of just sending ppl to the ftp site itself, actually
> have the link go to the directory that contains that version on the mirror
> site ...
> 
> that first page of the download could contain descriptoins of the variosu
> releases, and state of releases?
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

We could also use some download page similar to the one on httpd.apache.org - first you select a mirror (and one near you has been preselected) and under it you get a list of possible downloads... might be easier for the users than browsing through FTP...

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Andreas Grabmüller

--
LetzPlay.de
| Freemail:       http://www.letzplay.de/mail
| Forenhosting: http://www.letzplay.de/foren
>From pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org  Tue Nov 18 04:15:07 2003
X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8D17AD1B8BF; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:15:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
 by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 75952-08; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:14:37 -0400 (AST)
Received: from salem.vale-housing.co.uk (mailgate.vale-housing.co.uk [80.176.1.146])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 680B3D1B4EF; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:14:31 -0400 (AST)
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Subject: Re: Page contents
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:14:27 -0000
Message-ID: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B871FFFB@mail.vale-housing.co.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] Page contents
thread-index: AcOtbgM9SAgrXxi+Rp+lkoa8ImZAFwAPSIfA
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "Justin Clift" <justin@postgresql.org>,
	<pgsql-www@postgresql.org>,
	"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200311/310
X-Sequence-Number: 2957

=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]=20
> Sent: 18 November 2003 00:51
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Justin Clift; pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Marc G. Fournier
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Page contents
>=20
> Dave Page wrote:
> >=20=20
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> > > Sent: 17 November 2003 00:34
> > > To: Dave Page
> > > Cc: Justin Clift; pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Marc G. Fournier
> > > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Page contents
> > >=20
> > > Should opening an email every give you a virus?  I don't think so.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > No, but my point is without proper protection/procedures a=20
> user of any=20
> > OS/MUA can open and execute a trojan.
>=20
> Right, but I think my MUA and helper applications are=20
> designed to be safe so I can't botch it up.

As have been the last few versions of Outlook (proper, dunno about
Express). To get round that protection you have to do some non-trivial
registry hacking and even then you still get warnings when you try to
open things.

Whilst there are undoubtedly vulnerabilities in Outlook, as most other
apps, I think it's unfair to blame a product just because it has a
better class of idiot in it's userbase - especially when it's their
actions that cause 99.9% of the problems.

Anyhoo, this is waaaaay off-topic for here. I'm not overly interested,
but if anyone feels compelled to keep discussing this, feel free to
email me off-list :-)

Regards, Dave.