Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm
Date: 2008-07-29 15:48:46
Message-ID: 87prow3d41.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> Am Tuesday, 29. July 2008 schrieb Greg Sabino Mullane:
>>> What's not stable about having Python 2.5?
>
>> I mean "stable" to mean "does not change (unnecessarily)".
>
> I really don't understand Peter's objection here. This thread has
> already consumed more person-time than I spent on applying the
> back-patch.

Well I certainly wouldn't expect us to feel obligated to spend much effort
making 8.1 work with a new Redhat release, for example. We would just say 8.1
is only supported on those systems it was supported on when it was released.

But if you're happy doing the work I can't see any reason to stop you either.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-29 15:58:00 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-29 15:08:13 Re: patch: Add a separate TRUNCATE permission