Re: Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL

> ------- Original Message -------
> From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Sent: 28/01/07, 17:39:00
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
> > like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
> > though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
>
> But would that give people who have previously used the full installer
> an upgrade path (that doesn't break everything around it)?

Yes - they'd just unpack the archive over their install directory. Might screw up the permissions though, and wouldn't include the docs :-( We'd certainly need to try it out thoroughly first...

/D

Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > ------- Original Message -------
> > From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
> > To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Sent: 28/01/07, 17:39:00
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches
> >
> > Dave Page wrote:
> > > Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
> > > like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
> > > though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
> >
> > But would that give people who have previously used the full installer
> > an upgrade path (that doesn't break everything around it)?
>
> Yes - they'd just unpack the archive over their install directory. Might screw up the permissions though, and wouldn't include the docs :-( We'd certainly need to try it out thoroughly first...

I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle
for our most popular platform. As it is a packaging issue, if some
people don't want to continue providing updates, I can start asking in
the community for someone else to do it.

If the port is broken, and people must upgrade, I can see the reason for
not releasing updates, but if it is a question of time committment, I
oppose such cutbacks.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle
> for our most popular platform.

Are you volunteering to back-port and test all the Windows fixes that
never went into 8.0?

I think we should either do that, or admit that we're not supporting
8.0.x on Windows. I favor the latter; I'm certainly unwilling to spend
any of my own time on the former.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle
> > for our most popular platform.
>
> Are you volunteering to back-port and test all the Windows fixes that
> never went into 8.0?
>
> I think we should either do that, or admit that we're not supporting
> 8.0.x on Windows. I favor the latter; I'm certainly unwilling to spend
> any of my own time on the former.

I am fine with abandoning Win32 8.0.X because we don't want to backport
(like we did with 7.2.X), but not because we don't want to build the
install binaries.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +