| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Maintenance Policy? |
| Date: | 2009-07-07 16:13:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4A53743E.4090200@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I'd personally be perfectly happy with a community decision to desupport
>> 7.4 now, or perhaps after the next set of update releases (which we're
>> probably overdue for, BTW). We cannot support an indefinitely large set
>> of back branches, and a five-year lifespan seems about right to me.
>
> I had kind of thought it was five active versions, which translates to
> more or less the same thing. In that case, 7.4 would shortly be
> dropped. So I ask:
>
> 1. Should 7.4 be dropped after the release of 7.4.26?
>
> 2. Should there be an articulated, published maintenance policy? Or,
> at least, a prominent list saying, "these are the versions we actively
> support as of now"?
>
>
One thing I think we really should do is give prominent public notice of
any EOL for a branch. At least a couple of months, preferably. If the
lifetime were absolutely fixed it might not matter so much, but as it
isn't I think we owe that to our users.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-07 16:22:24 | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2009-07-07 16:10:02 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |