Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> > For what it's worth I find it hard to believe anyone's really
> > surprised by this. Nearly all other open source projects stop
> > supporting old branches as soon as there's a newer branch is released.
>
> I'm not surprised at all. Our product holds data - and that's an
> extremely valuable resource to end users (e.g. companies). Nobody wants
> to risk problems and/or suffer long downtimes. Our complete lack of an
> in-place upgrade is what is really making us do the extra effort to support
> old versions. Thankfully, it looks like we've finally started down the
> road to a serious attempt at an upgrade process.
>
> For what it's worth, I think our release history and current necessarily
> ad-hoc and somewhat arbitrary release process makes it difficult to make
> anything but the vaguest statement on dates, and I'd rather we didn't.
This might open the larger question of: What do we actually _promise_
users?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
