On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 11:50:45AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 10:50:10AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > Maybe, if we were doing an only-critical-fixes LTS release series,
> > > it'd be easier for downstream outfits to consume that instead of
> > > cherry-picking security fixes. I'm just speculating though.
> > > It's entirely possible that packagers would ignore our opinions
> > > and keep on cherry-picking only security fixes, in which case
> > > we'd be doing a lot of work for little return.
> >
> > ... if there were a PostgreSQL LTS series, Debian would probably use it.
> >
> > Overall, I think the current 5-year support window is good enough.
> > I don't see PostgreSQL supporting 10 years, so ELTS efforts will
> > always have to do some patching on their own.
>
> Thanks, that was very helpful.
>
I'd like to ask something, for future reference.
Should the ELTS team not make requests like the one I made here
initially?
In other words, I am trying to understand if the 5 year support window
means "this branch is no longer actively supported" or "no longer
actively supported, and we do not want questions/discussions about it on
this list".
If the latter, then I will document this to ensure that we respect this
boundary.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
