Re: [HACKERS] Win32 release warning

[Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>]

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Rob Butler <crodster2k(at)yahoo(dot)com> 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."
> >
> >
> > Not bad, but it doesn't make the point that there's a lot of new
> > platform-specific code for Windows in there.  You want to point
> > out not only that there's no history, but that there's new code to be
> > suspicious of.
>
>
> "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"
Not bad. I think I'd say " ... does not have the benefit of years of use 
in production environments that PostgreSQL has on Unix platforms ..." - 
I agree with Merlin that we shouldn't imply it hasn't been extensively 
tested.

cheers

andrew