-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
>> yet, so that page should be listing 7.4.27. Further, shouldn't we be keeping
>> even 'unsupported' versions on this page, so (e.g. case of check_postgres.pl)
>> clients can check if they have the latest revision, even if the major/minor
>> combo is super old?
> No, I don't think we should. We should list supported versions only.
> And check_postgres could be advised to throw a warning at least if
> you're running an unsupported version ;)
I'm not sure how useful that is. Surely while we encourage people to run
a recent major version, we also want to encourage people who will not
or cannot upgrade to at least be running the latest revision of a branch,
no matter how old it is?
How about a compromise? We add a new field to that XML so we can state
that it is unsupported, but leave it in there. That way, programs such
as check_postgres can not only distinguish between old but valid versions
and invalid versions (e.g. "7.typo.oops") but can act in a more intelligent
way for unsupported versions. Heck, maybe an estimated end-of-life date
field for all versions as well?
Either way, please add 7.4 back in. :)
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001291229
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAktjHAoACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgCVQCguBaAiZQLoH9Q5nE4UEDymyp0
SQcAn1pf1rgEKDH6LrmmngBPtxketfA0
=XJcP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----