Re: remove dead ports?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: remove dead ports?
Date: 2012-05-06 00:06:49
Message-ID: CA+TgmobTbxrUS7VuCV3P98YckkM8qK-MmUi8pGv=4PzCX75+Pw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, absent user feedback, we could use our own 5-year rule and keep
> sco and unixware, and remove irix (2006).

I think we should err on the side of removing less rather than more.
It won't hurt anything much to leave these around for another few
years.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2012-05-06 00:59:48 Re: remove dead ports?
Previous Message Jan Urbański 2012-05-05 20:45:15 Re: PL/Python result set slicing broken in Python 3