Scrappy wrote:
> is there a reason why we can't follow a similar  4+3 life cycle?  
> packagers r produced for the first 4y after .0 release and only source 
> updates for year 5 thru 7?
>
> if we could advertise such on the web, there would be no question as 
> to when bug reports are accepted (n+4y) and when only security ... and 
> after y7, it's just not supported at all ...
>
> that would kill packager requirements on 8.0, 8.1 (as of last month) 
> and totally kill 7.4 as of nov '10
>
>

What packagers produce is surely up to them. If RedHat or Devrim or Dave 
want to produce a package that's their prerogative.

And IMNSHO 4 years is too short a period for non-security bugs. We have 
seen odd behaviour issues past those dates.

The time between these periodic debates seems to be getting shorter and 
shorter.

cheers

andrew

In response to

• Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4? at 2009-12-01 19:19:20 from Scrappy

Responses

• Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4? at 2009-12-01 19:35:32 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Joshua D. Drake	Date: 2009-12-01 19:27:06
	Subject: Re: SE-PgSQL patch review
Previous:	From: Josh Berkus	Date: 2009-12-01 19:22:58
	Subject: Re: SE-PgSQL patch review