On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we want to have some sort of fixed policy for support lifespan, I
>> would suggest it be like "X amount of time after the release of the
>> following major version". But X probably has to depend on how big
>> the compatibility gotchas are in the following version, so we're still
>> really talking about a judgment call here.
> I'm not sure that that's going to help users much. I should think around
> 3 years (or some such predictable period) is a reasonable lifetime goal
> for a piece of software like this, accompanied by some weasel words.
> Maybe something like this would do: "We will attempt to maintain support
> of each major version for 3 years after its release, although this will
> not always be possible. After that time any major support requirement is
> likely to result in support being ended."
This sounds reasonable to me ... I think it is more then most software
projects do, isn't it?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Sabino Mullane||Date: 2005-09-27 00:12:15|
|Subject: Re: Questions about proper newline handling in psql output|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2005-09-26 23:16:00|
|Subject: Re: State of support for back PG branches|