2009/11/3 Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 13:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Tom Lane escribió:
>>
>> > A quick look in the cvs history shows 5 commits to 7.4 since the last
>> > set of releases, 6 commits to 8.0, 8 to 8.1, 13 to 8.2, 18 to 8.3.
>> > A couple of these patches were Windows-specific and were made only back
>> > to 8.2 because we desupported Windows in older branches awhile back.
>> > So far as I can see, the others were all made as far back as applicable.
>> > I think the lack of churn in 7.4 just means it's gotten pretty darn
>> > stable.
>>
>> If it's all that stable, what's the point in EOLing it? The only extra
>> pain it causes is having to check whether each patch needs to be
>> backpatched to it or not.
>
> Agreed
>
> Unless there are unfixable data loss bugs in it, I say we keep it.
There's a difference between doing it and promising it.
As long as we are supporting it, we *have* to backpatch critical
things, even if that is a lot of extra work. Normally it isn't, but
the case will come up.
Nothing prevents us from backpatching simple things, and still
releasing minors, for a non-supported version. It's just that we don't
promise to do it.
> Many people still run it, so why make them move?
Many people still run 7.3... We made them move...
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/