After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan), an earthling,
wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have shortened your paragraph to:
Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, this port might have more bugs
I have shortened your paragraph to:
Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, this port might have more bugs
than other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it thoroughly before using it in
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have shortened your paragraph to:
Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, this port might have more bugs
than other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it thoroughly before
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have shortened your paragraph to:
Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, this port might have more bugs
than other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:
lacks the extended testing?
That's good. We don't need to focus on bugs. The word bug and postgresql
should never occur in the same sentence... hmm...
--
/Dennis Björklund
---(end of broadcast)---
OK, new wording:
Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, it has not been tested as
extensively as other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it thoroughly before using it in production.
That makes it sound as if you didn't do the same level
of testing on *this* release, like it didn't go
through all the tests or something.
How about it does not have the extensive testing
history that other supported platforms in this release
have.
Later
Rob
OK, new wording:
Rob Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That makes it sound as if you didn't do the same level
of testing on *this* release, like it didn't go
through all the tests or something.
How about it does not have the extensive testing
history that other supported platforms in this release
have.
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Rob Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That makes it sound as if you didn't do the same level
of testing on *this* release, like it didn't go
through all the tests or something.
How about it does not have the extensive testing
history that other supported
Tom Lane wrote:
Rob Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That makes it sound as if you didn't do the same level
of testing on *this* release, like it didn't go
through all the tests or something.
How about it does not have the extensive testing
history that other supported platforms in
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Rob Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That makes it sound as if you didn't do the same level
of testing on *this* release, like it didn't go
through all the tests or something.
How about it does not have the extensive
Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.
Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this obvious? I mean this is the
first release of the Win32 code. Anybody who would be willing to put it
in
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.
Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this obvious? I mean this is the
first release of the Win32 code. Anybody who
Altho tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does
not
have
the benefit of the years of testing that has gone into the Unix
platforms,
and, as such, should be treated with the same level of caution as
you
would a new product
Wow, that is good! Current wording is:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Rob Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That makes it sound as if you didn't do the same level
of testing on *this* release, like it didn't go
through all the tests or something.
How about it does not have the extensive testing
history
On Thursday 26 August 2004 12:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Altho tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not
have the benefit of the years of testing that has gone into the Unix
platforms, and, as such, should be treated with the same level of caution
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2004 12:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Altho tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not
have the benefit of the years of testing that has gone into the Unix
platforms, and, as such, should be treated
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.
Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this obvious? I mean this is the
first release of
OK, current text suggestion is:
Although tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not
have the benefit of years of use in production environments that
PostgreSQL has on Unix platforms and therefore should be treated with
the same
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.
Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to add one for
final release.
Might be an idea ... if nothing else, something that at least reminds them
about reporting bugs and where to do so? I'd hate to see 1000 ppl
install, 90% see bugs adn
, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Tom Lane; Rob Butler; Dennis Bjorklund;
Richard Huxton; Andrew Dunstan; Neil Conway; PostgreSQL Win32
port list; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Win32 release warning
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to add one for
final release.
Might be an idea ... if nothing else, something that at least reminds them
about reporting bugs and where to do so? I'd hate to see
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to add one for
final release.
Might be an idea ... if nothing else, something that at least reminds them
about reporting bugs and where
There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to
add one for
final release.
Might be an idea ... if nothing else, something that at
least reminds them
about reporting bugs and where to do so? I'd hate to see 1000 ppl
install, 90% see bugs adn never have them reported :(
Yes, I
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Right. So how would you get the email address, without starting the mail
reader?
have them enter one in a text box?
We could add a checkbox that takes them to a webpage that permits
subscription. But they are certainly going to need to put their email
Right. So how would you get the email address, without
starting the mail
reader?
have them enter one in a text box?
We could add a checkbox that takes them to a webpage that permits
subscription. But they are certainly going to need to put
their email
address in there in some way...
On August 26, 2004 01:06 pm, Magnus Hagander wrote:
pginstaller itself that would auto-mail that out ...
Don't think that's going to work. You need th emailserver. In most
cases, you need the login for the mailserver. Most companies and
nowadays a lot of home ISPs block outbound SMTP unless
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 15:52, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Also, maybe we should encourage them to subscribe to
announce so we can
announce any Win32 fix releases we might need. They probably aren't
used to that procedure.
Having installed enough Windows software over the years
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Right. So how would you get the email address, without
starting the mail
reader?
have them enter one in a text box?
We could add a checkbox that takes them to a webpage that permits
subscription. But they are certainly going to need to put
their email
Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, current text suggestion is:
Although tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not
have the benefit of years of use in production environments that
PostgreSQL has on Unix platforms and therefore should be treated
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
All we need to do is and in some of the klez/sobig tech and not only can
we subscribe them, but we should be able to read through their address
book and subscribe 50 of their closest friends without any prompting at
all :-)
We could, but make sure its in
OK, release notes updated.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, current text suggestion is:
Although tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not
have the benefit of years of use
33 matches
Mail list logo
