From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4? |
Date: | 2009-12-01 23:43:36 |
Message-ID: | 25071.1259711016@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I still insist it's unrealistic to consider any of these, even 8.2, as
> anything but "best effort" at this point.
Agreed, and we should not pretend otherwise.
> Declaring 8.0 "end of life"
> today is implying that we haven't already been skipping fixing bugs in
> it that would have required major changes. People running 8.1 and 8.2
> should be given the truth that only really important bugs are going to
> cause any significant development for these versions.
The other side of the coin is that people running such old versions are
in it for stability --- they don't *want* bugs fixed, unless they're
bugs they've hit themselves. Major fixes that would possibly
destabilize the code base would be exactly what's not wanted. Every
time I get Red Hat to ship an update version, it's only after fighting
tooth and nail to do a "rebase" instead of cherry-picking just the fixes
for bugs that paying customers have specifically complained about. The
fact that we're pretty conservative about what we back-patch is the only
reason I ever win any of those arguments.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-12-01 23:44:02 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-12-01 23:36:13 | Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4? |