| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scrappy <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4? |
| Date: | 2009-12-01 19:26:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4B156DF6.5010307@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-12-01 19:27:06 | Re: SE-PgSQL patch review |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-12-01 19:22:58 | Re: SE-PgSQL patch review |