Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 2:13 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It's hard to "mandate" anything in a distributed project like this.
>> I don't really see a need to either, at least for cases where an
>> old animal isn't causing us extra work.
> I don't know, to me it feels like we have the argument about whether
> StegosaurOS is actually dead or whether there might be survivors of
> the Chixulub impact hiding somewhere several times a year.
I think you misunderstood my drift. I'm okay with setting a project
policy that we won't support OSes that are more than N years EOL,
as long as it's phrased to account for older PG branches properly.
My point was that we can implement such a policy in a laissez-faire
way: if an older BF animal isn't causing us trouble then why mess
with it? Once we *do* recognize that it's causing us trouble,
we can apply the still-hypothetical policy and ask the owner to
turn it off for branches where it's out of support.
regards, tom lane
