Re: Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, me(at)oisinglynn(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches
Date: 2007-01-28 17:39:00
Message-ID: 200701281839.01805.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Dave Page wrote:
> Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
> like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
> though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.

But would that give people who have previously used the full installer
an upgrade path (that doesn't break everything around it)?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-01-28 18:11:41 Re: [GENERAL] Password issue revisited
Previous Message Douglas McNaught 2007-01-28 17:33:45 Re: counting query