Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:23:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We didn't include 8.3RC1 in the security announcement because Josh
>>> wanted to make a separate announcement for it, but from every
>>> perspective except the PR one, it's out.
>
>> There has been no annonucement whatsoever. Our web site stll claims beta4
>> is the current version. I was under the impression that this tarball, like
>> all others, are considered preliminary until announced one way or another.
>
> Uh, no, that isn't the project policy. If we were to find some fatal
> problem in RC1 at this point, we'd spin an RC2, precisely because RC1
> has been up on the servers for a couple days now and confusion would
> inevitably result if we tried to redefine what RC1 was.
>
> The lack of an announcement is not my bailiwick, but tarball-making
> is. Once a tarball appears in the public FTP directories, it's
> official, and there's no reason to discourage people from using it.
Ok. That's not how I thought it was, and we have previously pulled
releases that were available as tarballs and re-released them with the
same version number. Sure, it was a while ago, but it has happened, and
if I'm not completely mistaken, more than once.
Anyway. My apologies for the incorrect statement in that case, and just
let me (or us, really) know when it's time to update the webpage.
//Magnus