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 C063B9DD659; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:33:33 -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 42117-03-4; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:33:21 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from fetter.org (dsl092-188-065.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.188.65]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDD49DD70C; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:36:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from fetter.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by fetter.org (8.13.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id jB11arYF025075; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:36:53 -0800 Received: (from shackle@localhost) by fetter.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jB11aqjM025073; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:36:52 -0800 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:36:52 -0800 From: David Fetter To: Robert Treat Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org, Tom Lane , Andrew Dunstan Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases Message-ID: <20051201013652.GB24009@fetter.org> References: <26656.1133366185@sss.pgh.pa.us> <438DCFB7.3040000@dunslane.net> <27165.1133368830@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200511301323.38351.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200511301323.38351.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/226 X-Sequence-Number: 8941 On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:23:38PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote: > 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. I see this as an excellent reason to draw a bright, sharp line between what vendors support and what the community as a whole does, especially where individual community members wear another hat. > 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? If any company chooses to support versions that the community is no longer supporting, that can be part of their value-add or more properly, their headache. Making commitments on behalf of the community--which will be held responsible for them no matter what happens--based on what some company says it's going to do this week is *extremely* ill-advised. > 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. And it's good that we're making more definite moves to show that we no longer support it :) > > 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. Excellent :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!