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 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"
Wow, that is good! Current wording is:
Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, there is much new Win32-specific
code that has not been tested extensively. Please test it
thoroughly before using it in production.
Should I change it to Marc's version?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
