Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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!

In response to

Responses

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2005-12-01 02:21:43
Subject: Re: Upcoming PG re-releases
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2005-12-01 01:21:46
Subject: Re: Upcoming PG re-releases

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2005-12-01 01:41:52
Subject: Problem with COPY CSV
Previous:From: Qingqing ZhouDate: 2005-12-01 01:22:08
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] ERROR: could not read block

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group