From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Maintenance Policy? |
Date: | 2009-07-11 00:29:33 |
Message-ID: | 4A57DCED.8050406@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> But on the whole I think we should NOT have such a policy, at all.
> If we'd enunciated such a thing in 2005, we'd still be on the hook to
> support 8.0 on Windows; or else have had to go back on our word. The
> truth of the matter is that the community will make reasonable efforts
> to support back branches but we are not going to set anything in stone.
> If someone wants a guaranteed EOL date, they ought to be contracting
> with a commercial support company and paying appropriately.
>
>
>
I think we can avoid most of these problems by making a "best effort"
policy rather than a hard promise. But it can be moderately specific
about what we will make best efforts towards. I agree that anyone who
wants a hard promise should be getting commercial support.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-11 00:39:56 | Re: Maintenance Policy? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-11 00:16:47 | Re: Maintenance Policy? |