From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases |
Date: | 2005-12-01 01:36:52 |
Message-ID: | 20051201013652.GB24009@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:23:38PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Personally I expect to keep supporting 7.3 for a long while,
> > because Red Hat pays me to ;-) ... and the EOL date for RHEL3 is a
> > long way away yet. The PG community may stop bothering with 7.3
> > releases before that. But I think Marc and Bruce figure "as long
> > as the patches are in our CVS we may as well put out a release".
>
> Yeah, thats one of the reasons I am skeptical about having official
> policies on this type of thing.
I see this as an excellent reason to draw a bright, sharp line between
what vendors support and what the community as a whole does,
especially where individual community members wear another hat.
> If Sun decided they wanted to maintain 7.2 and were going to
> dedicate developers and testing for it, would we really turn that
> away?
If any company chooses to support versions that the community is no
longer supporting, that can be part of their value-add or more
properly, their headache. Making commitments on behalf of the
community--which will be held responsible for them no matter what
happens--based on what some company says it's going to do this week is
*extremely* ill-advised.
> OK, I don't really want to have this discussion again, but as of now
> I think we are all agreed that 7.2 is unsupported.
And it's good that we're making more definite moves to show that we no
longer support it :)
> > We hashed all this out in the pghackers list back in August, but I agree
> > there ought to be something about it on the website.
> >
>
> We've been kicking it around but haven't moved much on this...
>
> Marc, can you move the 7.2 branches in the FTP under the OLD directory?
> http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/
>
> We need to do the same with 7.2 documentation, moving them into the Manual
> Archive http://www.postgresql.org/docs/manuals/archive.html. We can also
> change the caption on the main documentation page to note these are manuals
> for the current supported versions.
Excellent :)
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-12-01 01:41:52 | Problem with COPY CSV |
Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-12-01 01:22:08 | Re: [ADMIN] ERROR: could not read block |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-12-01 02:21:43 | Re: Upcoming PG re-releases |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-12-01 01:21:46 | Re: Upcoming PG re-releases |