Hi, If we can stick with upstream PostgresSQL that would be really nice. Otherwise security updates and regular package update will be a burden of package maintainers. Ideally we should have as less forked packages as possible.
-- Best regards, Sergii Golovatiuk, Skype #golserge IRC #holser On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Aleksandr Didenko <adide...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Downgrading for no reason could bring us to big trouble and bad user > experience > > +1 to this. Let's keep PostgreSQL 9.3. > > Regards, > Alex > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Artem Silenkov <asilen...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> Vote for update. >> >> 1. We have already shipped 9.3 in fuel-7.0. Downgrading such complicated >> package without any reason is not good thing at all. User experience could >> suffer a lot. >> 2. The next reason is tests. We have tested only 9.3, 9.2 was not tested >> at all. I'm sure we could bring serious regressions by downgrading, >> 3. Postgres-9.3 is not custom. It was taken from KOJI packages and >> backported without any modification. It means that this package is >> officially tested and supported by Fedora, which is good. >> 4. One shipped package more is not a huge burden for us. It was >> officially backported from official sources, tested and suits our need >> perfectly. Why do we need to play such dangerous games downgrading for no >> reasons? >> >> Let me notice that all packages are maintained by mos-packaging team now >> And we are perfectly ok with postgres-9.3. >> >> Downgrading for no reason could bring us to big trouble and bad user >> experience. >> >> Regards, >> Artem Silenkov >> --- >> MOs-Packaging >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski < >> bpiotrow...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-12-14 13:12, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: >>> > My opinion here is that I don't like that we're going to build and >>> > maintain one more custom package (just take a look at this patch [4] >>> > if you don't believe me), but I'd like to hear more opinion here. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Igor >>> > >>> > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1523544 >>> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/249656/ >>> > [3] http://goo.gl/forms/Hk1xolKVP0 >>> > [4] https://review.fuel-infra.org/#/c/14623/ >>> > >>> > >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> > Unsubscribe: >>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> > >>> >>> I also think we should stay with what CentOS provides. Increasing >>> maintenance burden for something that can be implemented without bells >>> and whistles sounds like a no-go. >>> >>> Bartłomiej >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: >>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
