X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39269DCD15; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:23:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05582-09; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:23:43 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net (eastrmmtao01.cox.net [68.230.240.38]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1919DCAD3; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:23:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.0.17] (really [68.105.164.226]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051130182237.MEYB21607.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@[192.168.0.17]>; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:22:37 -0500 From: Robert Treat To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:23:38 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Tom Lane , Andrew Dunstan References: <26656.1133366185@sss.pgh.pa.us> <438DCFB7.3040000@dunslane.net> <27165.1133368830@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <27165.1133368830@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200511301323.38351.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.012 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012] X-Spam-Score: 0.012 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/208 X-Sequence-Number: 8923 On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:40, Tom Lane wrote: > Personally I expect to keep supporting 7.3 for a long while, because Red > Hat pays me to ;-) ... and the EOL date for RHEL3 is a long way away yet. > The PG community may stop bothering with 7.3 releases before that. But > I think Marc and Bruce figure "as long as the patches are in our CVS we > may as well put out a release". > Yeah, thats one of the reasons I am skeptical about having official policies on this type of thing. If Sun decided they wanted to maintain 7.2 and were going to dedicate developers and testing for it, would we really turn that away? OK, I don't really want to have this discussion again, but as of now I think we are all agreed that 7.2 is unsupported. > We hashed all this out in the pghackers list back in August, but I agree > there ought to be something about it on the website. > We've been kicking it around but haven't moved much on this... Marc, can you move the 7.2 branches in the FTP under the OLD directory? http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/ We need to do the same with 7.2 documentation, moving them into the Manual Archive http://www.postgresql.org/docs/manuals/archive.html. We can also change the caption on the main documentation page to note these are manuals for the current supported versions. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL