Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Andrew Sullivan |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20031007120310.GC7436@libertyrms.info Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3
Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 OT: Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:17:16AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > What if the feature does break compatibility with old features? > What if it is "truly" a new feature? There is _no_ mechanism in the community right now for testing all these new features in the so-called stable tree. I have lately been taking the position that Linux is only a second-best choice for production use, precisely because of the constant introduction of shiny new features in the supposed stable branch. Without using something like RHAS or Debian stable, I think one is asking for trouble. One needs to do a great deal of testing on any new kernel release -- even a dot release -- just to be reasonably confident that it won't eat filesystems, introduce some new incompatibility, &c. From my point of view, this is similar to the position one is in with Windows: you need to quintuple-check every security patch and hot fix, because it is as likely as not to break something very badly. One of the things I have always liked about PostgreSQL is that a stable release really is stable. Except for mighty serious, low risk items, nothing gets backported to the stable releases. If _you_ want to back port things, go nuts: the source is there. But the main release does not get changed that way. That's a good thing. I happen to oversee one of those installations you mentioned, where it costs us lots of money to upgrade. If people start adding features to the stable tree, it will cost me almost as much to keep up with the small, important, must-be-applied fixes as it would to upgrade. Because I know those features won'r receive the testing they really need, I'll have no choice but to hammer on them all myself. In the current situation, those happen infrequently enough that I can do it. But if one starts introducing all sorts of extra features, I'll have to test _all_ of it. Or start maintaining a completely separate tree into which I put only the few patches I want. Why should everyone pay that cost for the sake of those people who want to eat their cake and have it too? If you want the new features, you gotta pay the cost of the upgrade, or pay someone else to support the new features for you. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
pgsql-hackers by date: