On 2021-Oct-25, Tom Lane wrote: > Roughly speaking, I think the policy should be "no feature bug fixes, > not even security fixes, for EOL'd branches; only fixes that are > minimally necessary to make it build on newer platforms". And > I want to have a sunset provision even for that. Fixing every branch > forevermore doesn't scale.
Agreed. I think dropping such support at the same time we drop psql/pg_dump support is a decent answer to that. That meets the stated purpose of being able to test such support, and also it moves forward according to subjective choice per development needs. > Also, I concur with Andrew's point that we'd really have to have > buildfarm support. However, this might not be as bad as it seems. > In principle we might just need to add resurrected branches back to > the branches_to_build list. Well, we would add them to *some* list, but not to the one used by stock BF members -- not only because of the diskspace issue but also because of the time to build. I suggest that we should have a separate list-of-branches file that would only be used by BF members especially configured to do so; and hopefully we won't allow more than a handful animals to do that but rather a well-chosen subset, and also maybe allow only GCC rather than try to support other compilers. (There's no need to ensure compilability on any Windows platform, for example.) -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Ed is the standard text editor." http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.emacs/msg/8d94ddab6a9b0ad3
