Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:15:33PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > It might be better to split into two different trees. One just gets bug fixes,
> > the other gets bug fixes plus enhancements that won't require an initdb.
>
> Yes, please. Please, please do not force all users to accept new
> features in "stable" trees.
One word of warning --- PostgreSQL has grown partially because we gain
people but rarely lose them, and our stable releases help that. I was
talking to someone about OS/X recently and the frequent breakage in
their OS releases is hurting their adoption rate --- you hit one or two
buggy releases in a row, and you start thinking about using something
else --- same is true for buggy Linux kernels, which Andrew described
earlier.
If we are going to back-patch more aggressively, we _have_ to be sure
that those back-patched releases have the same quality as all our other
releases.
I know people already know this, but it is worth mentioning specifically
--- my point is that more agressive backpatching has risks.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073