From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Date: | 2008-07-23 04:01:15 |
Message-ID: | 8999.1216785675@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 23:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's a limit to how far you can go there, because just about any
>> distro (other than maybe Gentoo) is going to be resistant to dropping in
>> bleeding-edge versions.
> We could have a quality committee? Something that says, "These 5
> packages are considered stable by PGDG". Those go into the various
> repositories whether published directly to STABLE (or equiv) or are put
> into something like Universe.
I don't think you got the point: such pronouncements would have exactly
zero influence on Red Hat, or any other distro I'm familiar with.
The *assumption* is that upstream thinks their new release is stable,
else they wouldn't have made it. The distros are in the business of
not believing that, until more proof emerges --- preferably from their
own testing.
I know that this is the mind-set at Red Hat, and I'm pretty sure
SUSE and Debian work the same way.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-07-23 04:47:44 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-07-23 03:47:01 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |