On 6 April 2016 at 21:56, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:
Anything is possible in software, if you're willing to expend the effort on it.
And you have the time, talent, funding and support from the community to do so.
Our path forwards is clearly resource-constrained along multiple dimensions.
The purpose of the compatibility breaks suggested was to implement new features that cannot easily be implemented because of backwards compatibility requirements. Obviously they were not intended merely to shake off a few pesky users we didn't care much about, but neither should we ignore the users we may lose if we are slow to implement new features while alternatives march ahead.
Deciding not to have a compatibility break release means that such things will remain forever blocked or we slowly increase the amount of old code we have to support all the multiple options needed, which will affect bug rates and support costs.
I don't really mind what we do, as long as we choose that direction via a conscious, rational choice.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
