Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > ------- Original Message -------
> > From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
> > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Sent: 28/01/07, 17:39:00
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches
> >
> > Dave Page wrote:
> > > Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
> > > like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
> > > though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
> >
> > But would that give people who have previously used the full installer
> > an upgrade path (that doesn't break everything around it)?
>
> Yes - they'd just unpack the archive over their install directory. Might screw up the permissions though, and
wouldn'tinclude the docs :-( We'd certainly need to try it out thoroughly first...
I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle
for our most popular platform. As it is a packaging issue, if some
people don't want to continue providing updates, I can start asking in
the community for someone else to do it.
If the port is broken, and people must upgrade, I can see the reason for
not releasing updates, but if it is a question of time committment, I
oppose such cutbacks.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
