On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 1:07 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > If there were some trivial way to do that, it'd be more acceptable. > Maybe invent a build-farm.conf option like "newest_branch_to_build"? > branches_to_build covers some adjacent territory, but its filtering > options go the wrong way (only branches newer than X, whereas what > we want here is only branches older than X); probably we could > also address this with more options there.
Yes, that would be nice. I also think we should mandate the use of that option for OS versions that are EOL for more than X years, for some to-be-determined value of X, like maybe 3 or something. Right now, in the absence of any policy, and in the absence also of any agreement on what the policy should be, we have to have a huge mailing list thread every time somebody wants to get rid of an OS. I think it should just be automatic. We don't need to give up -- and IMHO shouldn't give up -- on an OS the moment the vendor pulls the plug either on a certain release or on the system in general, but we shouldn't have to individually litigate every case, either. Right now half of when we desupport an OS seems to boil down to when the hard drive on the last remaining server anybody has access to finally dies, but that leads to weird outcomes where some operating systems are not tested even though they are still in active use and others continue to get tested long after they are not. To me, it all just feels a bit too random, and I think we would be well-served by being more intentional about it. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
