On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:10:42AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:07:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > > > At some point, we will find something where we will have to
> > > > duplicate some large hunk of 5.8's functionality to support
> > > > 5.6.
> > >
> > > No, we won't; we are not in the business of fixing Perl bugs.
> >
> > My point exactly.
> >
> > > You haven't given any reason why someone who is using 5.6 and is
> > > happy with it shouldn't be able to continue to use it with PG.
> >
> > In my experience, people aren't "happy with" 5.6. Instead,
> > they've got a mandate to maintain support for it, and this could
> > be an argument for upgrading.
>
> Or an argument to dump PostgreSQL.
I don't know about your experience, but in mine, outfits that hang on
that tightly to outdated software aren't the kind I find any profit in
supporting, either dollar-wise or in terms of personal satisfaction.
That aside, we have a choice here:
1. We can continue to support 5.6 until we can't any more, and
statistically speaking that "can't any more" is quite likely to happen
between two minor releases. In that event, we look flaky by changing
the requirements in mid-cycle.
2. We can give people ample advance notice that we're phasing out
support for Perl 5.6 and earlier, simplify our code base, and look
professional.
Which do you prefer?
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!