| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long) |
| Date: | 1999-10-31 23:46:19 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.9911010039520.342-100000@peter-e.yi.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 30, Jan Wieck mentioned:
> Right. A major release is what it is. And porting
> applications to a new major release too, it is a conversion,
> not an upgrade. Therefore a major release should drop as much
> backward compatibility code for minor releases as possible.
Certainly true. But that would also mean that we'd have to keep
maintaining the 6.* series as well. At least bug-fixing and releasing one
or two more 6.5.x versions. Up until now the usual answer to a bug was
"upgrade to latest version". But if you break compatibility you can't do
that any more. (Compare to Linux 2.0 vs 2.2) I'm just wondering what the
plans are in that regard.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Simms | 1999-11-01 04:12:09 | Backend crashes (6.5.2 linux) |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 1999-10-31 22:43:49 | Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess 0.98 |