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
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
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
