Обсуждение: Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
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
Done, as well as moved all but the last two of each version after ... On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, 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. 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 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
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!
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, David Fetter wrote: > 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. So, if Sun, SRA, Pervasive, Command Prompt, etc were to submit a patch for v7.2, we'd refuse it? I think not ... Will we accept/fix a bug report *for* v7.2, that is different ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>> >> 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. > > > So, if Sun, SRA, Pervasive, Command Prompt, etc were to submit a patch > for v7.2, we'd refuse it? I think not ... Oh but you should. The community has enough to worry about. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:56:33PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, David Fetter wrote: > > >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. > > So, if Sun, SRA, Pervasive, Command Prompt, etc were to submit a patch for > v7.2, we'd refuse it? That depends on what you mean by "refuse." Such a patch wouldn't resurrect the original Postgres with POSTQUEL and cause us to support it, and it won't cause us to start supporting PostgreSQL 7.2 again either. That said, there's a backports project on pgfoundry. We could see about something like an "attic" project for such patches, etc. This way, the community doesn't get albatrosses draped over its neck, and the patches are available for those interested :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!