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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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 



In response to


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 © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group