On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 11:50:45AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 10:50:10AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > Maybe, if we were doing an only-critical-fixes LTS release series, > > > it'd be easier for downstream outfits to consume that instead of > > > cherry-picking security fixes. I'm just speculating though. > > > It's entirely possible that packagers would ignore our opinions > > > and keep on cherry-picking only security fixes, in which case > > > we'd be doing a lot of work for little return. > > > > ... if there were a PostgreSQL LTS series, Debian would probably use it. > > > > Overall, I think the current 5-year support window is good enough. > > I don't see PostgreSQL supporting 10 years, so ELTS efforts will > > always have to do some patching on their own. > > Thanks, that was very helpful. > I'd like to ask something, for future reference.
Should the ELTS team not make requests like the one I made here initially? In other words, I am trying to understand if the 5 year support window means "this branch is no longer actively supported" or "no longer actively supported, and we do not want questions/discussions about it on this list". If the latter, then I will document this to ensure that we respect this boundary. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
