On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 12:14:37PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> 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.
Good question. In a way, if the person who made the change sees your
request and can answer it easily, it makes sense to ask. However, I
don't know the odds of that happening.
I would say ask, but don't take it personally if it your request is
ignored. We have fatigue about all the backpatching we have to do so it
is hard to get motivated enough to research EOL branches.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
