Re: EOL for 8.2 (was Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers)

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, andrew <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, cbbrowne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, greg <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: EOL for 8.2 (was Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers)
Date: 2011-04-21 17:15:16
Message-ID: 20110421171516.GT23895@aart.is.rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 06:04:09PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > [ man, this thread has totally outlived its title, could we change that?
> > ?I'll start with this subtopic ]
> >
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> In fact, I've been wondering if we shouldn't consider extending the
> >> support window for 8.2 past the currently-planned December 2011.
> >> There seem to be quite a lot of people running that release precisely
> >> because the casting changes in 8.3 were so painful, and I think the
> >> incremental effort on our part to extend support for another year
> >> would be reasonably small. ?I guess the brunt of the work would
> >> actually fall on the packagers. ?It looks like we've done 5 point
> >> releases of 8.2.x in the last year, so presumably if we did decide to
> >> extend the EOL date by a year or so that's about how much incremental
> >> effort would be needed.
> >
> > I agree that the incremental effort would not be so large, but what
> > makes you think that the situation will change given another year?
> > My expectation is that'd just mean people will do nothing about
> > migrating for a year longer.
> >
> > More generally: it took a lot of argument to establish the current EOL
> > policy, and bending it the first time anyone feels any actual pain
> > will pretty much destroy the whole concept.
>
> It would also make at least one packager very unhappy as the 8.2
> Windows build is by far the hardest and most time consuming to do and
> I happen to know he's been counting the days until it goes.
>
> More generally, keeping it for longer means we might end up supporting
> 6 major releases at once. That may not be so much work on a day to day
> basis, but it adds up to a lot at release times, which was one of the
> reasons why we agreed on the 5 year support window.
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

+1 for cutting the cord on 8.2. People using it still will need
to use the last release available, upgrade, or consult to have
a back-port/build made.

Regards,
Ken

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-04-21 17:18:31 Re: EOL for 8.2 (was Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers)
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2011-04-21 17:14:31 Re: EOL for 8.2 (was Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers)