Re: Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, me(at)oisinglynn(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches
Date: 2007-02-02 18:33:00
Message-ID: 45C383DC.1030101@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Richard Huxton wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
>> like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
>> though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
>
> The other option would be for one or more Windows users to step forward
> and say "I'll package 8.0 if I get some help".
>
Or in case one of the PostgreSQL support companies actually have
customers running this that needs it, they could do it. Obviously edb
doesn't feel the need, since Dave's not been ordered to :-)

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2007-02-02 18:35:01 Re: Re: pgAdmin III and pgpass was I "might" have found a bug on 8.2.1 win32
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2007-02-02 18:32:10 Re: Re: pgAdmin III and pgpass was I "might" have found a bug on 8.2.1 win32