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

Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4?

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

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