| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: minimum Meson version |
| Date: | 2025-09-25 16:53:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+mgP-V78aPb5tetyesrY24P9zJMxhh4zCcZsnpdDdCawQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:36 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Maybe we could compromise on
>
> If the expected PG major version release date is more than N years
> after the end of full support for an LTS distribution, that OS
> version does not need to be supported.
>
> Defining it relative to "full support" also reduces questions about
> whether extended support means the same thing to every LTS vendor.
>
> If we set N=2 then we could drop RHEL8 support in PG 19; if we
> set N=3 then it'd be PG 20 (measuring from end of full support
> in May 2024). I'd be okay with either outcome.
I see that RHEL8 support is ending [1], hooray! Are we comfortable
applying the "N=2" rule to all of our LTS targets? And is this thread
the de facto policy going forward?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-09-25 18:12:41 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-25 16:52:33 | Re: GNU/Hurd portability patches |