On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:56:33PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, David Fetter wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:23:38PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> >>On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>Personally I expect to keep supporting 7.3 for a long while,
> >>>because Red Hat pays me to ;-) ... and the EOL date for RHEL3 is a
> >>>long way away yet. The PG community may stop bothering with 7.3
> >>>releases before that. But I think Marc and Bruce figure "as long
> >>>as the patches are in our CVS we may as well put out a release".
> >>
> >>Yeah, thats one of the reasons I am skeptical about having official
> >>policies on this type of thing.
> >
> >I see this as an excellent reason to draw a bright, sharp line between
> >what vendors support and what the community as a whole does,
> >especially where individual community members wear another hat.
>
> So, if Sun, SRA, Pervasive, Command Prompt, etc were to submit a patch for
> v7.2, we'd refuse it?
That depends on what you mean by "refuse." Such a patch wouldn't
resurrect the original Postgres with POSTQUEL and cause us to support
it, and it won't cause us to start supporting PostgreSQL 7.2 again
either.
That said, there's a backports project on pgfoundry. We could see
about something like an "attic" project for such patches, etc. This
way, the community doesn't get albatrosses draped over its neck, and
the patches are available for those interested :)
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
