Tom Lane wrote:
> The other side of the coin is that people running such old versions are
> in it for stability --- they don't *want* bugs fixed, unless they're
> bugs they've hit themselves. Major fixes that would possibly
> destabilize the code base would be exactly what's not wanted. Every
> time I get Red Hat to ship an update version, it's only after fighting
> tooth and nail to do a "rebase" instead of cherry-picking just the fixes
> for bugs that paying customers have specifically complained about. The
> fact that we're pretty conservative about what we back-patch is the only
> reason I ever win any of those arguments.
>
>
>
I don't find anything wrong with this picture. The other upside of our
being conservative about what we back-patch is that users have much more
confidence in the community edition. If we were less so, we'd find more
users on older, vendor-supported versions, which would be more out of
date than they are now, for the reasons Tom outlines above.
cheers
andrew
