On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > daveg wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:22:01AM +0000, Greg Stark wrote: >> > >> > Really I think you guys are on the wrong track trying to map Postgres >> > releases to commercial support terms. None of the Postgres releases >> > are "supported" in the sense that there's no warranty and no promises, >> > it's all best effort. If you want a promise of anything then pay >> > someone for that service. >> > >> > As with any open source software if you're running 7-year-old versions >> > of the software you can't seriously expect the developers to take any >> > interest in bugs you discover which don't affect current releases. >> > Other projects don't release back branches at all. The most the >> > developers are likely to do if your bugs require serious engineering >> > is declare that the version you're using is too old. >> >> Claiming to support versions that are "too old" is giving users a false >> sense of comfort. Encouraging users to use these versions is actually >> harming them as when this happens they will be stuck with either living >> with the bug or doing an immediate unplanned upgrade. >> >> I suggest we announce now that both 7.4 and 8.0 will EOL when 8.5 is expected >> to ship, or to comfort those who never use .0 versions when 8.5.1 ships. > > I question whether it makes sense to EOL a version just to encourage > people to upgrade --- that logic really seems beyond our scope. It > might be practical to do it, but I see it taking us in a direction that > we might want to avoid.
I don't agree with "because we want to force people to upgrade", but I do agree with Dave Gould's point about giving a false sense of comfort (I made this same point upthread somewhere, I think). ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
