Обсуждение: Re: [pgsql-slavestothewww] New News Entry (id: 791)
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:59:31AM +0000, World Wide Web Owner wrote: > A new entry has been added to the news database. > > ---- > Submitted by: josh@postgresql.org > Headline: Security Update Releases > Summary: > > The PGDG has released a new minor version which fixes a privilege escalation exploit, as well as assorted minor issues. <snip> How come we're not even listing the version numbers of our upgrades in the news item?! A reason for it, or overlook? //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:59:31AM +0000, World Wide Web Owner wrote: > > A new entry has been added to the news database. > > > > ---- > > Submitted by: josh@postgresql.org > > Headline: Security Update Releases > > Summary: > > > > The PGDG has released a new minor version which fixes a privilege escalation exploit, as well as assorted minor issues. > > <snip> > > How come we're not even listing the version numbers of our upgrades in the > news item?! A reason for it, or overlook? Josh didn't have all releases mentioned in the original, so I didn't add it. What I did do, though, was to add the release numbers to the email subject line. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:59:31AM +0000, World Wide Web Owner wrote: >>> A new entry has been added to the news database. >>> >>> ---- >>> Submitted by: josh@postgresql.org >>> Headline: Security Update Releases >>> Summary: >>> >>> The PGDG has released a new minor version which fixes a privilege escalation exploit, as well as assorted minor issues. >> <snip> >> >> How come we're not even listing the version numbers of our upgrades in the >> news item?! A reason for it, or overlook? > > Josh didn't have all releases mentioned in the original, so I didn't > add it. What I did do, though, was to add the release numbers to the > email subject line. I think it's important to include it, because a lot of people have no idea what we're talking about if we just say "back branches" or something like that. And I do believe it should go in the contents to be completely clear. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:59:31AM +0000, World Wide Web Owner wrote: > >>> A new entry has been added to the news database. > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> Submitted by: josh@postgresql.org > >>> Headline: Security Update Releases > >>> Summary: > >>> > >>> The PGDG has released a new minor version which fixes a privilege escalation exploit, as well as assorted minor issues. > >> <snip> > >> > >> How come we're not even listing the version numbers of our upgrades in the > >> news item?! A reason for it, or overlook? > > > > Josh didn't have all releases mentioned in the original, so I didn't > > add it. What I did do, though, was to add the release numbers to the > > email subject line. > > I think it's important to include it, because a lot of people have no > idea what we're talking about if we just say "back branches" or > something like that. And I do believe it should go in the contents to be > completely clear. FWIW I tried to add the version numbers to the techdocs page but it said it was being edited for so long that I gave up. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:59:31AM +0000, World Wide Web Owner wrote: > >>> A new entry has been added to the news database. > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> Submitted by: josh@postgresql.org > >>> Headline: Security Update Releases > >>> Summary: > >>> > >>> The PGDG has released a new minor version which fixes a privilege escalation exploit, as well as assorted minor issues. > >> <snip> > >> > >> How come we're not even listing the version numbers of our upgrades in the > >> news item?! A reason for it, or overlook? > > > > Josh didn't have all releases mentioned in the original, so I didn't > > add it. What I did do, though, was to add the release numbers to the > > email subject line. > > I think it's important to include it, because a lot of people have no > idea what we're talking about if we just say "back branches" or > something like that. And I do believe it should go in the contents to be > completely clear. Sorry, seems the announce was approved before I could modify it. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce, > Sorry, seems the announce was approved before I could modify it. Hmmm, I sent you two versions, the later one had the release numbers. Apparently you missed that e-mail, and I was stuck on an airplane. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Project Core Team Member (any opinions expressed are my own)
Folks, Ooops, sorry. I was trying to post this while stranded in Dulles airport (it took me 32 hours to get home from Sao Paulo) and apparently screwed it up. Looks like the last version I tried to post didn't actually get saved. --Josh