| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: EOL for 7.4? |
| Date: | 2009-11-03 16:29:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1257265785.13207.4730.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 13:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>
> > A quick look in the cvs history shows 5 commits to 7.4 since the last
> > set of releases, 6 commits to 8.0, 8 to 8.1, 13 to 8.2, 18 to 8.3.
> > A couple of these patches were Windows-specific and were made only back
> > to 8.2 because we desupported Windows in older branches awhile back.
> > So far as I can see, the others were all made as far back as applicable.
> > I think the lack of churn in 7.4 just means it's gotten pretty darn
> > stable.
>
> If it's all that stable, what's the point in EOLing it? The only extra
> pain it causes is having to check whether each patch needs to be
> backpatched to it or not.
Agreed
Unless there are unfixable data loss bugs in it, I say we keep it.
Many people still run it, so why make them move?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-11-03 16:35:41 | Re: EOL for 7.4? |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2009-11-03 16:26:33 | Re: EOL for 7.4? |